Friday Open Thread

What's on your mind?

Comments

[AmosArch]

Speaking of disenfranchisement. California is roughly 40% conservative/Republican leaning based on the Presidential election. Yet the Dems control more than 80% of the House seats and 100% of the Senate seats. And about 75% of the state legislature. So thats roughly 8 million people disenfranchised. Or more depending on how you juggle the numbers. Why are we whining so much about DC again when nobody seems to care about this? How many people live there?

[gVOR08]

Now do Texas.

[Supremacy Claus]

The Irish Potato Famine (1845–1852) remains one of the most catastrophic episodes of mass death in modern European history, claiming over a million lives and displacing another million through emigration. While natural blight devastated the potato crop, the true scale of suffering was not inevitable; it was shaped by political, economic, and legal choices. Among those responsible were members of the legal profession—lawmakers, barristers, and administrators—who upheld frameworks that prioritized property rights and laissez-faire ideology over human survival. Their role in resisting or delaying the repeal of the Corn Laws illustrates how legal conservatism contributed to famine mortality.

Legal Structures and Property Rights

Irish land tenure in the nineteenth century was governed by laws that entrenched the rights of landlords—often absentee and Anglo-Protestant—at the expense of tenant farmers, most of whom were Catholic. Legal professionals drafted, defended, and enforced eviction laws that allowed landlords to expel families who could not pay rent, even as crops failed. Courts consistently upheld landlord rights, treating tenants as disposable. The profession’s allegiance to property law, rather than humanitarian necessity, meant that starving families were legally cast into the roads while food continued to be exported from Ireland. In this sense, the legal system became an instrument of famine, not relief.

The Corn Laws and Legal Conservatism

The Corn Laws—protective tariffs on imported grain—kept food prices artificially high to benefit British landowners. Though the famine made repeal morally urgent, many lawyers, judges, and Members of Parliament with legal training resisted change. They argued in legalistic terms that repeal would violate long-standing principles of English property and contract law, destabilize the landed order, and exceed Parliament’s proper authority. This resistance prolonged the application of tariffs and slowed the inflow of affordable food into Ireland. It was not until 1846, under Prime Minister Robert Peel, that the Corn Laws were repealed. Even then, repeal came too late to save hundreds of thousands already weakened by hunger. The delay was not accidental but the product of parliamentary debate dominated by lawyers trained to privilege precedent, hierarchy, and the rights of the landowning class. Their insistence on gradualism, legality, and economic orthodoxy over emergency relief translated directly into mass death.

Free Trade, Export Quotas, and Famine

Even after the repeal of the Corn Laws, structural legal barriers rooted in free trade ideology continued to deepen famine suffering. Free trade agreements and export regulations maintained quotas that ensured the steady flow of Irish agricultural exports to Britain, despite abundant harvests of non-potato crops. Grain, livestock, and butter left Irish ports under legal contracts and trade commitments, while the local population starved. Lawyers and policymakers defended these export quotas as necessary to honor property rights and uphold Britain’s trade reputation, demonstrating how legal instruments of commerce were elevated above humanitarian responsibility.

Modern Parallels

The dynamic of law serving commerce while ignoring famine is not confined to the nineteenth century. In modern conflicts, international trade law and contractual export obligations continue to limit famine relief. For example, during the Ethiopian famine of the 1980s, export contracts for cash crops were honored even as millions starved, with lawyers defending the sanctity of trade agreements. In Yemen’s ongoing humanitarian crisis, international shipping restrictions and blockades—structured through legal frameworks of war and trade—have slowed food entry despite abundant supplies in global markets. Similarly, in East Africa today, nations suffering drought are often still required to meet export quotas under trade agreements, prioritizing foreign exchange earnings over feeding their populations. In each case, legal doctrines of property, contract, and sovereignty override the moral imperative to save lives, repeating the same deadly pattern seen in Ireland.

Conclusion

The Irish Potato Famine was not simply a natural disaster; it was a legally mediated catastrophe. Lawyers, by defending the Corn Laws, upholding landlord eviction rights, maintaining export quotas under free trade agreements, and prioritizing economic orthodoxy over humanitarian duty, contributed to the deaths of over a million people. Modern parallels in Ethiopia, Yemen, and other famine-stricken regions show that this legal pattern persists: the profession often elevates contracts and commerce above human life. The famine remains a sobering reminder that the law, when divorced from moral responsibility, can become an accomplice to mass death—both in the nineteenth century and in our own time.

[Frank Drackman]

John Belushi said it more succinctly and funnier in 1977

[Frank Drackman]

Jane Curtin: And now we come to St Patrick's Day and John Belushi is here to discuss the luck of the Irish.
John Belushi: Thank you, thank you very much. Well, it's come that time again, St. Patrick's Day has come and gone and well, the sons of Ireland are basking in the glow. When I think of Ireland I think a lot of colorful Irish expressions like, "Top of the morning to ya," "Kiss the barney stone," "May the road rise to meet ya," "May you be in heaven an hour before the devil knows you're dead," "I'd like to smash you in the face with my shillelagh," "Danny-boy," "Begorra," "Wail of the banshee," and "Whiskey for the leprechauns, whisky for the leprechauns." But the expression I think most people identify with the Irish, is, of course, the luck of the Irish.
The luck of the Irish. Sure. Let's say you're in a pub somewhere in Ireland, oh, anywhere in Ireland, some guy comes up to you and says, "Hey is that a bomb on you I hear ticking?" And then BAM!!! Your small intestines are on the ceiling and your brains are on your car across the street. That's the luck of the Irish for ya, who's kidding who, okay?
Let's talk about the bad luck of the Irish, all right? How about this, POTATO FAMINE!! How about that? It scares them, doesn't it? Well, it should. That's why they came here in the first place. So they wouldn't have to work in the potato fields. That's why they became politicians, priests, and cops. Luck? Gimme a break.
(he gets more and more worked up as he continues)
I got a friend, his name is Dan Sullivan, he's Irish as they come. We used to drink together a lot. After two drinks, he would look like an Irish pirate. You know? You think he had luck? In one day he got his car stolen, and the stupid, he had no insurance, and no license, and he gets locked up for being drunk. And after that, he takes off for someplace like India or Nepal, or someplace like that. And his mother dies, ya know, so they wire him to tell him to come to the funeral. It's his mother's funeral, that's all. And he's in India or Nepal, sitting squat-legged listening to some sacred cow. So he comes back and he gets stopped at U.S. Customs for trafficking illegal drugs, not holding, he's trafficking. I mean, here's this guy Sullivan, his old lady kicks off, he gets popped at the border and he's sitting on fifty pounds of black Tibetan finger hash and two keys of slam. Now that's not bad luck, that's DUMB luck. I don't think luck has anything to do with it, I don't think he has any brains at all. First of all, he's drunk, then he's a junkie. I don't know what's worse! Don't ask me, ask Sullivan! And what happens?! He calls me up and says, "Hey man, I got busted at the border. I need five grand bail." I said, I said, "Five grand man!? Hey man, I've never even seen five thousand dollars in my life, so don't ask me for it, man, why don't you ask your mother!!" (aside) Which was a dumb thing for me to say because his mother just died. (returns to his loud tirade) Right now, I got this drunken Irish junkie who wants to kill me because of what I said about his mother being in terminal dreamland! Oh pal. One thing! One thing!!! They love their mothers, boy, oh they love their mothers. It's momma this, momma that. (starts flailing his arms wildly in the way only John Belushi could) Oh my Irish mother! Ireland must be heaven, because my mother.. aauugghhh! Aaauugghhh!!! (as he flails he nearly slams his head on the desk and then falls off his chair, still screaming)
Jane Curtin: Well, that's the news. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

[AmosArch]

Okay...Texas is about 42% Dem leaning with 32% of the House Delegation and 35% and 41% of the state legislature. So nowhere near as bad as California but strangely enough much more in the news.

[Martinned]

Is it?

[Frank Drackman]

It is

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do both BY COUNTY -- or better by CITY...

[Stephen Lathrop]

AmosArch — Why are presidential election results an appropriate criterion to decide gerrymandering questions?

If partisan gerrymandering is okay, why wouldn't it also become status quo, maximally practiced in every state all the time, with census results re-cast every 2 years or so?

If that is not okay, what process of constraint ought to be applied alike everywhere?

[AmosArch]

My point is that leftists are masters of projection. Most everything they accuse their opponents of they do worse. (another example would be racism/discrimination, they are the party fighting against it supposedly, yet at the same time the one that most openly and proudly brags about discriminating by race). With the help of their surrogates in the media though they've managed, at least for dumb people, to invert reality. IE Evil republicans are the ones stomping around disenfranchising voters, Gruesome Newsom is going to 'counter' evil republicans by further gerrymandering a map which already disenfranchises half of Republicans far more than Texas. What a hero according to the breathless MSM. Reichwingers what to discriminate by race. How dastardly of them. BTW heres thousands in money and jobs if you are a certain race.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Did you miss the happenings in Texas?

With no prompting from Democrats in California or anywhere else, Trump asked Texas to unusually re-draw its districts in a non-census year simply to help save Republican House seats before the 2026 midterms. Texas has obliged.

This did not happen because "leftists are masters of projection"; it happened because MAGAts are masters of corruption.

[Keldonric]

I’m not sure “disenfranchisement” is the right word here. Nobody’s being denied a ballot — it’s that voters haven’t self-sorted, so conservatives in blue districts (or liberals in red ones) get outvoted. That’s representation diluted by geography, not disenfranchisement in the D.C. sense where people literally don’t have voting members of Congress because they don’t live in a state.

If everyone in the states did self-sort, the map would likely track closer to the 60/40 vote split, but it would also mean sending more ideologically firm reps from both sides, since there’d be fewer mixed districts forcing moderation. On the other hand, if we had perfect political integration instead, Republicans would probably vanish from California’s delegation entirely — every district would be 60/40 blue — but the result might be more moderate Democrats, since each district would still have to court a large conservative minority.

You could in theory add an amendment analogous to the 23rd to give D.C. residents representation in the legislative branch — but I’m not sure that would ever fly politically.

If only politicians could just order people where to live, they’d never have to worry about these maps again. /sarc

[Michael P]

California ended up with its current legislative set by having Republicans relatively spread out, but we don't see that producing your claimed moderate Democrats, because they don't need to court that minority. Instead we see "jungle primaries" that send two Democrats to the general election, and the majority of voters pick the more extreme one because the moderate gets painted as a stalking horse for Nazis (or other fascists, racists, etc.).

[Mr. Bumble]

Is the term "jungle primaries" racist?
Asking for a friend.

[Frank Drackman]

Love when the talking heads on PMS-NBC will call Brennan or Clapper a "Spook",(even heard "Chief Spook" once) totally unaware of it's other meanings.

Frank

[LexAquilia]

Look at a county map and you'll fine "spread out" means covering 70% of California that isn't the coastline between SF and LA/SD.

[Commenter_XY]

AmosArch: Gerrymandering is here to stay. It won't go away.

Just let it happen. I don't think it is half as bad as people posit. There are too many elections for gerrymanders to remain in place in perpetuity.

[shawn_dude]

This is a wonky take.

Besides the obvious reasons for why legislators shouldn't get to pick their voters, gerrymanders in states that already do them (most GOP but not all) don't seem to weaken and have, so far, remained in place since creation. And any state that feels that population changes are weakening an existing district's partisan guarantee could simply draw new maps to fix it.

I will commend you on not pointing to California and pretending that Trump and Texas didn't start this ball rolling.

The only good thing that might (*might*) come out of this is some sort of Federal or Constitutional action to eliminate the Gerrymander permanently.

[Commenter_XY]

Gerrymanders have been around since shortly after the start of the Republic. It has a lengthy history. But the people themselves have changed it on many occasions. That is why I say let it happen and am supremely confident that the people will rid themselves of it when they are energetically engaged.

Independent of political party label, the great mass of people out there are reasonably intelligent and know what they are doing; they're competent. The wisdom of the crowd works in this context.

[David Nieporent]

Gerrymanders have been around since shortly after the start of the Republic. It has a lengthy history.

What has changed, though, is computing technology that makes so easy a caveman could do it. It used to be a long, drawn out process to create even a single map, requiring expert knowledge of voting patterns and the like. Now, push a button.

That is why I say let it happen and am supremely confident that the people will rid themselves of it when they are energetically engaged.

People who lose out because of gerrymandering by definition lack the power to rid themselves of it, and the ones who do have the power have no incentive to do so.

the great mass of people out there are reasonably intelligent

The average person is an idiot, and half of them are dumber than that.

[Sarcastr0]

1. Gerrymandering is bad; but it's a huge free rider problem and won't be solved on a state-by-state basis.
2. Not getting who you want elected isn't disenfranchisement.
3. Texas, at the behest of Trump, is first mover here; everything else is a defensive reaction.
4. You don't mention Texas initially. You claim that's to point out all the projection going on from the other side...looks to me more like you don't have legit standards, just partisan resentment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Let's put this in context, shall we?

Republicans currently hold 17% of California's House seats, if the proposed additional gerrymandering works as expected, that will be cut to 8%. This in a state that's maybe 38-40% Republican.

So Republicans presently get 45% of proportional representation, and Democrats aim to reduce that to 21% of proportional representation.

Texas is about 42% Democratic. Democrats currently hold 34% of the House seats. If the Texas gerrymander works as intended, they'll end up with 21% of those seats.

So Democrats presently get 81% of proportional representation in Texas, and Republicans aim to reduce that to 50% of proportional representation.

California is already more gerrymandered against Republicans than Texas would be against Democrats AFTER this proposed gerrymander!

Now, this is a crude way to analyze things, which doesn't take into account political geography, but the last sophisticated analysis of gerrymandering I looked at, that did take political geography into account, had California already being one of the most gerrymandered states in the country. And Texas not gerrymandered at all. (Figure 3, page 335.)

So, Texas proposes to move from not gerrymandered to gerrymandered, and that's bad.

In response, California is proposing to move from heavily gerrymandered to insanely gerrymandered. That's worse.

The bottom line is that neither party should be gerrymandered, but the truth is, the Republicans are just playing catch up here compared to California.

This is not really a fight Democrats can win, by the way, if it goes national: Democrats have already exploited most of their gerrymandering potential, they don't have a lot of gains available to them on this front. By contrast, Republicans have hardly started. If both parties gerrymandered balls to the wall, the map for Democrats would be really, really bad.

Can we achieve some sort of mutual disarmament on this front? I don't have a lot of hope, but that's what we should aim for. And getting rid of court ordered racial gerrymandering would be a good start.

[Sarcastr0]

This isn't context; it's trying to draw an imaginary line such that you can be OK with what Texas is doing but condemn California.

For all your assertions and numbers, you can't really do that and be principled.

Again, Texas is the first mover here. That's a difference in kind.

Everything else is you trying to remain partisan but not look like it. And declare preemptive victory in this partisan war you've set up.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is, in fact, context, as the fact you want to ignore all the numbers and go with your "vibes" demonstrates.

Texas is only the first mover here if you ignore all previous moves. California was ALREADY more gerrymandered than Texas is proposing to become. They were already one of the most gerrymandered states in the country.

I'd rather Texas canceled their gerrymandering scheme, and California abandoned gerrymandering in favor of a fair map, giving Republicans in California about the level of representation Democrats currently enjoy in Texas.

But if it takes an all out gerrymandering war to convince Democrats to give up on their own gerrymandering, I guess that's what it's going to take.

[Sarcastr0]

Texas is doing a mid-term gerrymander. You can't context your way out of that.

How many exact units of gerrymander each state has is irrelevant to whether you think this is cool or not.

I'd rather Texas canceled their gerrymandering scheme
Coulda fooled me. Just like how you 'don't like Trump' the proof is where you spend your energy.

convince Democrats
This is you pretending Republicans don't have agency, except to influence those dastardly Dems. You do it a lot.

Republicans are in power. All over the place. Texas broke norms to do this.
You have a ridiculously open double standard here, that is evident to everyone but yourself.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, Texas is doing a mid-term gerrymander, I have already acknowledged that. And California is ALREADY gerrymandered, can YOU acknowledge that? By every metric of gerrymandering I know of, California is already gerrymandered worse than Texas proposes to become!

What's the important thing here, the offensive thing? That it's mid term, or that its a gerrymander? If a state were gerrymandered already, and in mid term adopted a fair map, would you be outraged? No, I don't think so. The real offense here is the gerrymandering, not the mid-term aspect.

So the bottom line remains as I've identified it: Texas is proposing to go from a reasonably fair map to gerrymandered, and that's bad.

California is ALREADY gerrymandered worse than Texas proposes to become, and that's bad.

California is proposing to become gerrymandered to a degree that is essentially unprecedented, and that's worse.

California is the wife beater who responds to being slapped by threatening murder. And you want to focus exclusively on the mid term aspect, to avoid acknowledging the relative extents of the gerrymandering.

[Don Nico]

S_O calls that a reply, but he is just a school boy yelling, "He hit me first."

[CountmontyC]

No he is yelling " he hit me back."

[Don Nico]

I have refereed kids on the playing field who run the same scam.
It is just a lot of BS by the folks who complain about the inherent "lack of democracy" in the governing structure of America.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"Texas is the first mover here."

So they are God?

[Martinned]

You're thinking of the unmoved mover. That's something else.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"First mover" is also used.

I checked. Multiple citations came up, including Encyclopedia Britannica.

[Mr. Bumble]

Yes Texas can be the First Mover (first to the market).
Your reference to God is misplaced (God being the Unmoved Mover).

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Not in this context. "First mover" in this context just means Texas was the first to move (allegedly). It has nothing to do with Texas being divine.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Some Texans might disagree.

Also, it might have been a joke.

[Mr. Bumble]

Nice try. Take the L.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, it might have...

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Anyway, it was a joke -- I knew S. didn't mean "God," that's pretty obvious, but the term has various meanings.

And, yes, one of them is "God." There are other terms, but "first mover" is one of them. Again, I double-checked.

The amount of back/forth on this little thing very well might be a little teachable moment. Or it just might be silly. Like the joke.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I suspect he’s thinking of prime mover.

[David Nieporent]

That's Amazon.com.

[Dr. Ed 2]

California responded by saying it will eliminate 5 GOP reps -- Texas should respond by reducing the TX Dems to 8% as well.

Fair is fair.

[M L]

Good summary.

But I wonder about this idea that parties shouldn't gerrymander, or that there is some kind of neutral option. I mean, districts have to be drawn in some way, right? And there is always going to be a political advantage to how those districts are drawn. Democrats in some states come up with nonsense like "independent districting" but then these "independent commissions" tilt Democrat and draw districts in a way that benefits Democrats. I'm not sure what the solution would be but it seems like no matter what you do you're doing to be favoring one side or the other.

[shawn_dude]

If you look at California's maps, the current districts are pretty contiguous along community and geological boundaries. The majority of them are not big, oblong squiggles. That doesn't mean moving a line a block here or there cannot make the difference between "lean blue" vs "lean red," and so, on the margins, there is a chance for some influence, though that is further diluted by rigor in the process to seat the redistricting body. That pales in comparison to the tactics used to "pack and crack" districts to maximize partisan gain. Pretending that California is currently gerrymandered to any effective degree is a facile generalization designed to make a false equivalence with Texas and justify an immoral power grab.

The anger over California is not because liberals are hypocrites but because it takes the wind out of a hope for maintaining a GOP supremacy after the midterms and with it the high MAGAts get from "owning the libs" and beating down disfavored groups of people.

[M L]

No, as has been explained, California is already more gerrymandered than Texas is proposing to become. And California is now proposing to become even more gerrymandered than it is.

Your attempts to define away gerrymandering if districts look "pretty contiguous" or if the "majority of them are not big, oblong squiggles" is obviously extremely weak nonsense. You think that having a majority of aesthetically pleasing shapes is somehow relevant in any substantive way? This isn't art or graphic design. The only substantive analysis is representation, as Brett detailed.

Liberals being hypocrites is not even a question, everyone already knows that. The anger here is on the part of Democrats about Texas, to which some people are pointing out that it's pure political nonsense.

The plain fact of the matter is that a nationwide redistricting race would benefit Republicans. If everyone redraws districts now Republicans would benefit. That's because Democrats have already used up their potential gerrymandering advantage to a much greater extent than Republicans have.

[bernard11]

You know, M.L., there are those who defend GOP gerrymandering (or deny it exists) on the ground that Democrats tend to be concentrated in cities, so win fewer districts by larger margins, and there is nothing nefarious going on.

But when CA's districts are disproportionate due to geography it must be gerrymandering.

Frankly, I don't like district-based voting for reps at all, and would much prefer proportional representation. Besides the fact that gerrymandering is inequitable, it tends to produce a more partisan legislature than PR.

[Bunny495]

It is true to a large extent that " Democrats tend to be concentrated in cities, so win fewer districts by larger margins, and there is nothing nefarious going on." More so for minorities who also tend to wind up in small, concentrated areas. I am not convinced that "CA's districts are disproportionate due to geography". Lots of pubs live in cities and it is easy to draw lines along streets and still favor one side or the other.

Drawing districts as compact polygons with the least number of sides sounds like a good idea but the devil is in the details and just because a district is a normal looking shape does not mean there has not been gerrymandering.

[shawn_dude]

I agree, which is a point I made. But this particular devil is one of false equivalence. If a largely contiguous boundary can be moved a block or two to strengthen an advantage, it is operating (literally) in the margins and won't have a large effect either way. However, that's the not the same as "cracking and packing" which is designed to take a set of districts and create a durable and reliable majority for most of them. There is no equivalence here. The former could be shifted those two blocks for legitimate reasons while the latter will bear no resemblance to a cohesive boundary nor resemble anything other than an illegitimate attempt at rigging the district for a partisan goal.

[Jmaie]

I don't think what California is planning can be accurately described as operating in the margins, at least if this Politico article is correct.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/14/leaked-chart-reveals-winners-and-losers-in-californias-democratic-gerrymander-00510363

CD-1, the rural northeastern corner of the state represented by Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa, transforms from safe Republican to safe Democratic

CD-3, a sprawling district along California’s eastern border represented by GOP Rep. Kevin Kiley, goes from safe Republican to safe Democratic

CD-9, Democratic Rep. Josh Harder’s northern Central Valley district, moves from lean Democratic to safe Democratic
CD-13, a Central Valley seat narrowly won last year by Democratic Rep. Adam Gray, changes from lean Republican to safe Democratic

CD-27, a northern Los Angeles County seat held by Democratic Rep. George Whitesides, moves from lean Democratic to safe Democratic

CD-41, a battleground seat held by GOP Rep. Ken Calvert, transforms from safe Republican to safe Democratic
CD-45, which Democratic Rep. Derek Tran won last year in the most expensive race in the country, goes from lean Democratic to safe Democratic

CD-47, an Orange County district represented by Democratic Rep. Dave Min, moves from lean Democratic to safe Democratic

CD-48, which spans Riverside and San Diego counties and is held by GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, changes from safe Republican to lean Democratic.
***

There was a different article, also on Politico (I think) that mentioned 20 point R->D swings in the affected districts.

[M L]

AI should be very useful for gerrymandering. Just add a "make the shapes look normal" factor and bump that slightly until it looks nice.

[M L]

Interesting point bernard. I suppose everyone is going to make the arguments available to them that would help their political situation.

When you get down to it, I agree with you that gerrymandering seems inevitable. And I have a hard time buying the geographical/shape arguments, because we aren't talking about any actual geographic jurisdiction here. We're just talking about a group of people who will elect a representative who will then go to D.C. and supposedly "govern" a vast global empire rather than their local neck of the woods. (emphasis on supposedly).

It would be better if those people in rural areas could govern their own affairs in their own area, and people in cities could govern their affairs in the city. Not one side overwhelming the other. Then people wouldn't care so much about who the president is and all this national nonsense. In other words, decentralized government. Geography makes sense when it comes to that.

[David Nieporent]

No, as has been explained, California is already more gerrymandered than Texas is proposing to become.

No, as has been explained — and was just explained above in the comment to which you're responding — it is not.

Your attempts to define away gerrymandering if districts look "pretty contiguous" or if the "majority of them are not big, oblong squiggles" is obviously extremely weak nonsense. You think that having a majority of aesthetically pleasing shapes is somehow relevant in any substantive way?

Yes! That's how gerrymandering is defined! It's not defined by the outcome of the election; it's defined by whether the district lines were drawn based on an intent to achieve a particular partisan breakdown. If a random number generator is used to draw districts, and one party gets a number of victories disproportionate to its share of the vote, that doesn't mean the random number generator is a gerrymanderer.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Texas, at the behest of Trump, is first mover here"

NY did mid decade redistricting before 2024. Texas is just responding

[David Nieporent]

3. Texas, at the behest of Trump, is first mover here; everything else is a defensive reaction.

Literally, since California's proposal is to use Texas as a trigger. If no-mid-decade redistrict by them, then California's doesn't kick in.

[hobie]

We've already been over this two weeks ago. California banned gerrymandering 18 years ago.

[LexAquilia]

Did you hear that guys? CA CAN'T be gerrymandered because they banned it! Those screwy looking maps aren't from gerrymandering at all! They're from jigjackermanding which is entirely legal!

[Don Nico]

And Gavin Buddyfucker wants to bring it into full glory

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Are you trying to "out" Gavin Newsom?

[shawn_dude]

LOL. This is hilarious. Gavin is a "Buddyfucker," which is supposed to be some sort of allusion to sexual deviance of some kind which the audience is supposed to take as a bad thing. And it's being said in support of a dude convicted by a jury of sexual assault and another jury of tax fraud and only escaped personal punishment by entering the Whitehouse and using presidential immunity. The same guy that bragged on tape about sexually assaulting people, who infamously paid off his porn star hooker to not mention their tryst while Melania was pregnant with their youngest son, who is known to have walked into the locker room filled with teenage girls dressing for his beauty contest, and who's best buds with a child sex trafficker with one of the victims naming Trump himself as her rapist.

But sure, let's call Newsom a "Buddyfucker" to underscore how we hate sexual misbehavior?

[hobie]

Shhh! Be quiet, shawn. Accusing everyone of being a pedophile backfired spectacularly. Looks like they're shifting to homosexual acts. Let's see where this leads us!

[Armchair]

Except...

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-democrats-fooled-californias-redistricting-commission

[tylertusta]

My least favorite part of CA's little scam was how the state government picks the people eligible for being on the commission after having them write an essay on "insight into their professional experience, awareness of California’s diversity, and their reasons for wanting to serve on the Commission."

Diversity statements are one of the ways that the left enforces it's orthodoxy in academia through gatekeeping. It was present in the CA's commission's vetting process for the applicant pool.

This is how you get "Republican" commissioners like Jane Anderson from Berkeley, California, who was a devout Planned Parenthood supporter, donated to NARAL and supported Democratic causes through ActBlue.

[shawn_dude]

Centrist Republicans (when such things existed) were often pro-women's freedoms and rights. In districts with a balance of liberals and conservatives these kinds of Republicans are more common, as are Democrats who embrace some conservative viewpoints.

It's telling that you feel these causes are a litmus test for being a true Republican while spouting off about "orthodoxy."

[tylertusta]

I think you would be singing a different tune if Republicans were choosing which Democrats could represent Democrats.

[David Nieporent]

awareness of California’s diversity,

Since Article 2 of the VRA requires them to draw districts taking that into account, it would seem to be an important bit of knowledge. (You may think it shouldn't require that, or that this is unconstitutional, or whatever, but California is bound by that requirement until the courts say otherwise.)

[Brett Bellmore]

California traded legislative gerrymandering for commission gerrymandering. That's all they did.

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, with phony GOPers and "independents" selected by the Dem auditor.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

A "rigged selection"...

[Bob from Ohio]

Yes, if you prefer that term.

[shawn_dude]

Then you should be happy that California is going to be more honest and transparent about it, right?

Here's an analysis on gerrymandering per state: https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/

Fun read. Out of all the states that are heavily gerrymandered, only 4 are listed as benefitting Democrats. The other 11 states are benefitting Republicans. (of states ranked D or F)

[Brett Bellmore]

I knew what was coming before I even followed your link: They weren't measuring gerrymandering, but instead how fair they thought the maps were, how closely they reproduced the outcome you'd expect under a proportional representation system.

But, 'replicates proportional representation' isn't how "gerrymandering" is defined. "Gerrymandering" is drawing a map, generally with contorted districts, to achieve a particular result.

Given the way Republicans and Democrats are distributed in most states, you actually have to commit gerrymandering to pass their test! You'd never produce 'fair' maps without deliberately drawing the map using knowledge of how people voted.

Chen and Cottrell approached this much more objectively, generating large numbers of maps by computer that are not gerrymandered, because they are generated without regard to voting data, just constrained to be compact and equal in population.

They then take these totally nonpartisan maps, and using historical election data, reconstruct expected political outcomes under each map.

If the actual map in a state lies outside the set of non-gerrymandered maps, then you know, objectively, that it was drawn for political reasons. Figure 3 on page 335 shows the result of this analysis for each state.

For some states, such as South Carolina, (Where I live.) or Ohio, your 'Gerrymandering Project's fairness test, "vote efficiency", will purely by coincidence produce the same conclusion as an actual test for gerrymandering.

But for some states like Arizona, or California, they come up with a false negative, or a false positive in a state like Texas, because it actually requires gerrymandering to produce a map they like, no impartially drawn map would pass their tests.

[David Nieporent]

Vibes again.

[Moderation4ever]

So lets speak more to the problem of gerrymandering rather than blaming some side or the other. I live in Wisconsin, a gerrymandered state. I would like to see far more non partisan redistricting and I like to more emphasis on getting competitive districts.

[shawn_dude]

Of the worst gerrymandered states in the Union, 4 out of 15 (see my Princeton link above for my source) benefit Democrats. Wisconsin is on the list in favor of Republicans. I have a slim hope that this nonsense will lead to Republican representatives in largely blue states like California voting in Congress to restrict or disincentivize gerrymandering. I'm against gerrymandering, but as a Californian, I'm voting in favor of Newsom's countermove against Texas.

However, my hope is very, very slim indeed given that most California GOP members of Congress are avoiding speaking out against Texas' move with most making arguments that don't mention Texas at all. There is no appetite in the GOP for dissent among their members.

[Brett Bellmore]

See above: Your 'Gerrymandering Project' isn't testing for gerrymandering. They're using metrics that, in many states, can only be passed BY gerrymandering.

[ducksalad]

Speaking of disenfranchisement.....about 35% of us are independents or support third parties. The number of seats we hold in the House of Representatives hovers between 0 (0%) and 1 (0.25%).

Until that gets addressed, I'm not interested in the hypocritical whining from Republicans or Democrats. I'm happy to see any or all of you "disenfranchised", you richly deserve it.

[Brett Bellmore]

Ultimately, the only solution to that is proportional representation. Which I actually support, but Congress has outlawed for federal office.

I doubt it has much of a future barring something big happening, because neither major party is willing to tolerate a system where a third party might have a chance.

[ducksalad]

I don't support formal proportional representation, because we should be electing specific people, not for generic party labels.

IMO a better solution would be single vote, multiple winner elections. E.g. eight names on the ballot, you get to vote for one, top three win.

But yes, it's all dreaming.

[shawn_dude]

How about shifting to a parliamentary system?

[ducksalad]

I was thinking about systems that wouldn't require tossing out our whole constitution and starting over*. I believe Congress could, in principle, move to single vote multiple winner using an ordinary statute.

*In the current climate I think there is zero chance a wide open constitutional convention would give us anything remotely acceptable compared to what we've got.

[Commenter_XY]

You know, our system of government is atrocious. Until you consider all of the others. 😉

Why not make the House bigger? Instead of 438, why not 1,600 or 1,800? THAT would be more representative, no?

[ducksalad]

435 is already bordering on too many for a body that is supposed to be engaging in actual deliberations.

If you took it to say 2,000 the individual members wouldn't have any more real input than ordinary voters in a medium sized city, and the average member would never get to speak even once on the House floor. In practice, they'd essentially have to choose a few hundred from among themselves to do the real legislating and bill drafting. Having no real authority, they'd lack any sense of responsibility. I mean even less than now....

[David Nieporent]

Agreed, but additionally — particularly with the almost complete collapse of local media in recent decades — there would be no public accountability for almost any of them. What conscientious reporter could keep up with the shenanigans of 2000 people? There would be scores of George Santoses out there. (And that's just personal shenanigans — it doesn't take into account inserting that random favor into the text of a bill. We already hear people say, "Nobody knows how that controversial provision was included.")

[Brett Bellmore]

Increasing the number of House members would indeed make gerrymandering harder, but Democrats would NOT like the result. They're fooling themselves about that: As long as we use compact single member districts, those almost 100% Democrat urban centers will hurt them. Increasing the House size just makes that worse by making it harder to use urban votes to swing suburban elections their way.

[David Nieporent]

Speaking of disenfranchisement.....about 35% of us are independents or support third parties. The number of seats we hold in the House of Representatives hovers between 0 (0%) and 1 (0.25%).

I like the slippery rhetoric there: "independents or support third parties." Those are two very different things. The vast vast vast majority of "independent" voters are IINO and always support one of the Big Two or the other.¹ In much the same way that lots of straight/cisgender kids call themselves "queer" because it's trendy, lots of Republicans/Democrats call themselves "independent." (Most of the rest of the independents mean that they are swing voters; they will vote for either Dems or Republicans in different elections depending on the candidates. But they're not looking to vote for an actual "independent.")
​
​
¹Hell, most supposedly independent politicians aren't really independent, at least once you get past the local level. It typically means, "The Big Two party to which I belong is unpopular in my jurisdiction, so I won't call myself that anymore. But I will continue to support and vote with them."

[Martinned]

I'm curious, now that ICE will take recruits no matter how old and/or fat they are, have any of the Trumpists on this blog signed up yet?

[Frank Drackman]

I think they were more targeting you.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Once you relax the physical fitness standards for women, you then prove that relaxed standards are acceptable and hence why not accept men who also can only meet the relaxed standards?

All you are asking is that he be able to the job as well as the "qualified" woman can.

[Frank Drackman]

Obstacle course we had to do in Flight Surgeon School had an 8 foot cement wall you had to go over.
That is, the Male Students had to go over, the Split-tails got to run around it, and every single Male Student still finished before every Chick.
I couldn't do it when I first got there, (be honest, how many of you could climb over an 8 foot cement wall? you had to jump, grip the top with your fingers, pull yourself up, swing yourself over, and jump to the ground.
Oh yeah, the "ground" was sand, so you didn't really have a great surface to jump from and the top of the wall got slick with the sweat from everyones grubby Dickbeaters (Marine Corpse Slang for "Hands")
One day when I was out running the course a Giggle of High Screw-el girls showed up, probably a Softball team,
They all climbed over that wall like they were storming the Bastille,
How many here do pullups? they're highly perishable, used to do them till I had the Rotator Cuff, 20 was the max for the Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test (no Kipping!!!) which I could do, OK, in 1994, now I might be able to do 1.

Frank

[ThePublius]

There's a video online of. Pete Hegseth and RFK, Jr. working out with the Marines. Booth of them did 50 pull ups and 100 push ups in just over 4 minutes. Impressive when you consider RFK is 71. (Hegseth is 45.)

When I was young I could do all the pull ups I wanted and even three sets of 20 one handed push ups. Now I'd be lucky to do ten each. (I'm 68.)

[Sarcastr0]

You do love the pullups video! You post about weird dear leader shit about how cool it is.

It doesn't actually matter.

[Life of Brian]

It doesn't actually matter

Shades of Jim Carrey.

[ThePublius]

Stop trolling me, Sarcastr0.

[rswallen]

Coming soon to a Sullum article near you: NY Supreme Court upholds verdict in Trump's civil fraud case.

[Commenter_XY]

Sullum will need to get past this first.

https://www.newsmax.com/us/civil-fraud-letitia-james-case/2025/08/21/id/1223412/

[Martinned]

The NY Supreme Court is where that decision came from in the first place...

[Mr. Bumble]

NY, where words seem to have different meanings then most other places.
supreme /soo͝-prēm′/
adjective

Greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant. Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement. Ultimate; final.
"the supreme sacrifice."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
Not the case with the NY Supreme Court.

[Krayt]

"Better make an appeals court that sits on top of the Supreme Court, just in case!"

Reminds me of an old comic. Two guys are looking at a bank vault with a massive door. There's a 2 foot hole in the wall with a smooth, simple plug lying on the ground, "That's the escape hatch in case someone gets locked inside."

[Martinned]

The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is not the highest judge of England and Wales (merely the head of the Court of Appeal).

The King's Bench Division does not, in fact, sit on a bench, just like its predecessor the Court of Kings Bench didn't for many centuries.

More importantly, in England magistrates aren't even (necessarily) lawyers.

And in the Netherlands the King's Commissioner of every province is not, in fact, answerable to the King. (They are the head of the executive, although they can be fired by the government in certain circumstances, which technically would involve the King's signature.)

Long story short: in old jurisdictions things have names that don't always make sense anymore, but that are an echo of an ancient past.

[William of Brooklyn]

I would be thrilled to be appointed Master of the Revels.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And people -- OK, one person -- wonders why I refer to a NY SJC even though I know that is not the actual title of it.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody wonders why, because nobody believes you know that.

[rswallen]

Indeed, and the point being made is that Sullum will focus on the fact that the Court didn't overturn the verdict, only the judgement

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sullum is not on the VC, is he?

[Kazinski]

Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion ripping government officials for willfully ignoring Supreme Court opinions:

"JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE KAVANAUGH
joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this
Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them. In
Department of Ed. v. California, 604 U. S. ___ (2025)
(per curiam), this Court granted a stay because it found the
government likely to prevail in showing that the district
court lacked jurisdiction to order the government to pay
grant obligations. California explained that “suits based on
‘any express or implied contract with the United States’” do
not belong in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), but in the Court of Federal Claims under
the Tucker Act.... Rather than follow that direction, the
district court in this case permitted a suit involving materially identical grants to proceed to final judgment under
the APA. As support for its course, the district court invoked the “persuasive authority” of “the dissent[s] in California” and an earlier court of appeals decision California repudiated.... That was error. “[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be""

I concur.

[Kazinski]

Decision here,
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a103_kh7p.pdf

It was a 4-1-4 with Roberts, Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor concurring in part, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh concurring in part, and Barrett splitting the baby in two, but giving the plaintiffs only a pinkie and the Administration the rest.

Basically the District court can go ahead rule on the EO and the regulation under the APA which the government wanted stayed but was denied, but the issue of the paying the money goes to the Federal claims court rather than the district court so the injunction ordering the government to pay the money is stayed.

[Martinned]

“[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be"

Does that include Humphrey's Executor?

[Frank Drackman]

Too bad Humphrey wasn't executed, along with LBJ.

[Kazinski]

Humphrey's Executor is still good law and Morrison too, but so is Myers and Selia Law, and it seems the facts in Humphrey's were buried with him, Morrison is a question mark, but Myers and Selia are in the peak of health.

[Martinned]

And yet we get stuff like this, which makes a mockery of the idea that Humphrey's Executor is being followed. Basically the 5th Circuit is simply guessing that today's Supreme Court won't force it to follow that precedent.

https://reason.com/volokh/2025/08/19/fifth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-nlrb-proceedings-distinguishing-humphreys-executor/

[Kazinski]

If they got this wrong, then I hear the courts are open 24 hours a day:

"But both the Supreme Court and this circuit have declined to extend Humphrey's Executor to agencies that are not a "mirror image" of the FTC. The NLRB's structure and powers take it outside that narrow exception."

But the 5th just said the NLRB couldn't hear the case, so there is plenty of time to appeal with no danger of irreparable harm, so NLRB can file a cert petition but no need to address in on the shadow docket.

[Martinned]

Yes, basically the Supreme Court expects the lower courts to follow its precedents, except the precedents it doesn't like.

[Sarcastr0]

Same with Kaz, it seems.

[Kazinski]

No, the Supreme Court has said it expects lower courts to follow its opinions until they have been overturned, including Humphreys.

But unless it is the FTC, Humphreys doesn't apply. Myers does, which is older and also never been overturned.

[Sarcastr0]

unless it is the FTC, Humphreys doesn't apply

Where did the Supreme Court say that?

[Kazinski]

Seila Law:

In Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), we held that Congress could create expert agencies led by a group of principal officers removable by the President only for good cause. And in United States v. Perkins, 116 U.S. 483 (1886), and Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), we held that Congress could provide tenure protections to certain inferior officers with narrowly defined duties.
We are now asked to extend these precedents to a new configuration...We decline to take that step."

That is Supremecourtese for "those decisions were good for one ride only".

[loki13]

No, that isn't. Because, e.g., Humphrey's Executor has been cited repeatedly by both the lower courts AND by SCOTUS since then.

That's not one ride only (this only applies to the FTC, then, because we have had almost a century of the exact opposite ... kind of a big deal).

At most, it means that they "held that Congress could create expert agencies led by a group of principal officers removable by the President only for good cause."

It did not mean, "Congress can only create the FTC, and maybe the Fed, because boy, that would be bad if we didn't carve that out, and everything thing else that doesn't start with F is definitely fair game. FEC? We'll think about it."

But then again, maybe you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night? Feel free to lawsplain to the rest of us how vertical stare decisis works.

[Sarcastr0]

As loki said, what you're asking for is a step the Court has not taken.

Your approving Gorsuch quote post is inconsistent with your position here.

Unless your unifying principle is 'give Trump more power.' Which, lets be honest, has been constantly how your layperson's analysis has come out.

[Kazinski]

I guess I am confused, I thought Trump fired Slaughter from the FTC, and the Court of Appeals stayed her reinstatement in July, saying Trump is likely to prevail. She's still off the board.

I thought that Trump fired members of the Merit Systems Protection board, lower court reinstates, Supreme court stayed the injunction because Trump is likely to prevail.

And another thing perplexing me is Trump fired the Office of Special Counsel got reinstated in district court, the order waa stayed in Court of Appeals. And Hampton Dillinger dropped his appeal when the Supreme Court declined to intervene.

And the late great NPR is just adding to my confusion:
Supreme Court allows Trump to fire members of independent agency boards — for now

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday granted the Trump administration's emergency request to fire the heads of two independent agencies, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The vote was 6-3 with the liberals in dissent.

While the decision is technically a temporary one, its tone is pretty final."

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/22/nx-s1-5366714/supreme-court-nlrb-mspb

Thanks for trying to help but obviously I am still confused.

Perhaps you can point me to at least one case out of the many where Trump has fired a member of any "independent" board or commission and it hasn't stuck, despite multiple cases reaching the Supreme Court or court of appeals.

That might help.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Gorsuch should have thought that through before corroding Supreme Court authority by over-reliance on shadow docket orders without supporting opinions.

What seems destined to happen now is a lower-court revolt to compel SCOTUS to provide explicit grounds by whiich lower courts get guidance on how to decide cases. It would be fine with me if that process included ignoring SCOTUS orders handed down without full opinions on the merits of every case which the Court insists must stand as precedent. It makes no sense to permit a meritless case to establish precedent. A justice who purports to understand the law ought to be capable to demonstrate an understanding of the activity the law purports to govern.

[Kazinski]

Well the case they cite did have a per curiam opinion which did explain their reasoning, which was the same as this case: you can't use the APA to order a payment of monetary claims. That case was 5-4. And basically the same line up, Roberts and the Libs v Barrett and the Right.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
In the case of such a revolt, the President ensure that the laws are faithfully executed by ignoring the tantrum of the lower court judges.
"It makes no sense to permit a meritless case to establish precedent. "
The US does not have the "reasonableness standard" of the usurper Israeli Supreme Court.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nico — A shadow docket decision handed down without an opinion remains inherently ambiguous and unresolvable on the question what the law is, except in the instance of the specific shadow docket case decided. That leaves lower courts unconstrained if they distinguish subsequent cases from the shadow docket one.

A lower court opinion on a case thus distinguished should therefore remain definitive on the question what the law is in regard to that instance, unless and until the Supreme Court acts on that one too.

Advocacy to use the shadow docket to strip power from lower appeals courts thus becomes advocacy either to create a hopeless muddle of conflicting precedents, or an endless parade of instantly-tailored shadow docket decrees without decisions. The Roberts Court appears to be in process to do the latter.

Wherever corruptly partisan pro-MAGA justice leads, count on the Roberts Court to go there by the most direct route. As Michael Luttig and other conservative legal authorities continue to insist, the Roberts Court is building a record as the most lawless Supreme Court in the nation's history.

[Martinned]

That's going well. Or, to look at it from a glass half full perspective, investigative journalism is still possible in Israel:

Data from an internal Israeli intelligence database indicates that at least 83 percent of Palestinians killed in Israel’s onslaught on Gaza were civilians, an investigation by +972 Magazine, Local Call, and the Guardian can reveal.
(...)
The database includes a list of 47,653 names of Palestinians in Gaza whom Aman considers to be active in the military wings of Hamas and PIJ; according to the sources, the list is based on the groups’ own internal documents acquired by the army (which +972, Local Call, and the Guardian were unable to verify). The database designates 34,973 of the names as operatives of Hamas and 12,702 as operatives of Islamic Jihad (a small number are listed as active with both groups, but these are counted only once in the overall total).

According to the data, which was obtained in May of this year, the Israeli army believed it had killed around 8,900 operatives since October 7 — the deaths of 7,330 of whom were considered certain and 1,570 recorded as “probably dead.” The vast majority of them were junior, with the army suspecting it had killed 100-300 senior Hamas operatives out of a total of 750 named in the database.
(...)
The overall death tolls published daily by the Gaza Health Ministry (which Local Call revealed last year are considered reliable even by the Israeli military) do not distinguish between civilians and militants. But taking the militant casualty figures obtained from the internal Israeli army database in May and lining them up against the Health Ministry’s total death toll, it is possible to calculate an approximate civilian casualty ratio for the war up until three months ago, when the death toll stood at 53,000.

Assuming that all of the certain and probable militant deaths were counted in the death toll, that would mean over 83 percent of Gaza’s dead were civilians. If the probable deaths are discounted and only the certain deaths included, the proportion of civilian deaths rises to more than 86 percent.

https://www.972mag.com/israeli-intelligence-database-83-percent-civilians-militants/

[Frank Drackman]

What percent of Israelis killed on 10-7 were Civilians? How about at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945? How about the thousands of unborn who continue to be murdered every day?

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

eurotrash,

The human animals known as hamas can end the war today by releasing the Jewish hostages they are starving and torturing.

Otherwise, hamas will be hunted down and killed. That doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Just remember eurotrash, when hamas is finished with the Jews, you're next.

[Martinned]

Why do you hate so passionately?

[Mr. Bumble]

What are hate and love without passion?

[Martinned]

Reason?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Nuke Gaza!

Kill Them All -- let Allah sort it out...

[Don Nico]

Geez, Ed what is with the "nuke Gaza" nonsense. You need a MRI of the head.

[Brett Bellmore]

Seriously, how many times do we have to point out that Gaza is so small that if you DID nuke them, you'd be nuking Israel and Egypt, too?

[Mr. Bumble]

Giving Dr. Ed the benefit of the doubt assume he means figuratively and not literally.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Hate is part of being a religious nutjob, apparently.

[Riva]

Maybe they should have published it as a “dossier” to make the bullshit more believable? Israel has gone out of the way, putting its own forces in jeopardy, to avoid civilian casualties. The Hamas terrorists hiding under schools, hospitals, apartments, and even UN facilities? Not so much. Human shields are expendable. Hopefully the present military assault on Gaza will eliminate whatever remains of the terrorists you seem eager to defend. Has Hamas committed any wrongs in this war?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Data from an internal Israeli intelligence database indicates that at least 83 percent of Palestinians killed in Israel’s onslaught on Gaza were civilians, an investigation by +972 Magazine, Local Call, and the Guardian can reveal."

What's the correct percentage?

[Riva]

Ask Hamas. They started the war and like to kill civilians, and torture and starve hostages. Anything critical to say about your favorite terrorist organization?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If 83% is the "bullshit" percentage, presumably you have an idea what the correct percentage might be. No?

[CountmontyC]

972=Israel's Salon magazine or the Guardian newspaper. Pure trash

[Martinned]

That's one way to rebut their evidence.

[Bob from Ohio]

You have only seen an article, not any of the alleged evidence.

Bias is certainly appropriate to assert.

[Martinned]

Sure, asserting things is easier. But it would be better to explain which bit you think they made up.

[CountmontyC]

Besides all of it? How about explaining how they obtained this secret information?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Overall, we rate +972 Magazine Left-Center Biased based on the wording and editorial positions that lean left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/972-magazine/

"Overall, we rate The Guardian as Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

Couldn't find a rating for "Local Call".

[David Nieporent]

Data from an internal Israeli intelligence database indicates that at least 83 percent of Palestinians killed in Israel’s onslaught on Gaza were civilians, an investigation by +972 Magazine, Local Call, and the Guardian can reveal.

Nah; it's a garbage analysis that even 972 admits is garbage, though it buries that in its article. It assumes that anyone who was killed whose corpse wasn't specifically identified was a civilian, which is nonsense:

The intelligence sources explained that the total number of militants killed is likely higher than the number recorded in the internal database, since it does not include Hamas or PIJ operatives who were killed but could not be identified by name, Gazans who took part in fighting but were not officially members of Hamas or PIJ

In other words, what the investigation actually showed was that 17% of those killed were confirmed combatants, not that 83% were civilians.

If Israel drops a bomb on a Hamas tunnel and kills 10 people, 3 of whose bodies could be identified and crossed off the membership list, 2 others of whose bodies could be identified but weren't on the list, and 5 of whose bodies couldn't be identified at all, that does not mean that 70% of those killed were civilians. It doesn't mean that any of those killed were civilians.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Bots are incapable of critical thinking...but you are--and you make a good point.

[shawn_dude]

OTOH, IDF soldiers have reported that they're shooting at people without regard for actions or age other than they're just in the wrong place at the wrong time. There are well-sourced reports on journalists being targeted, hospitals, schools, etc. You're right that the 83% likely includes some combatants, but this discrepancy exists alongside a pattern of indiscriminate targeting of people in general which would tend to increase non-combatant deaths relative to combatants. To use your own example, if the IDF bombs a location with one known combatant and kills three others along with 10 civilians, it's still just as bad even if the civilian death rate is only 60%. Pointing out the very real issues with the reported numbers doesn't do anything but underscore the lack of reliable data regarding how many civilians are killed by the IDF. I don't think the uncertainty in the exact number of civilians killed by the IDF should be used as cover for the Israeli government's responsibility for mass civilian casualties in Gaza.

[Commenter_XY]

It is called war. That region of the world does not fight western style war. Their rules are different. The war continues until hamas surrenders and leaves, or dies. There is no middle ground there. The gazans are the victims of, and victimized by hamas.

That is reality. The best outcome for gazans is a rapid IDF victory, and hamas gone.

[shawn_dude]

"It is called war [crimes]"
FTFY

[Martinned]

A warning for my American friends. Once you get past a certain point of corruption, it can be difficult to get back, because even anti-corruption measures become sources of corruption.

On August 20, 2025, the Indian Government introduced three constitutional amendment bills of massive implications in the Parliament. Together, the bills aim to replace the parliamentary tradition that the executive ministers are accountable solely to the House and establish a mandatory legal sanction providing that any minister – including the Prime Minister at the Union level and Chief Ministers at the State Governments – can be removed from their ministerial office if arrested or detained for thirty consecutive days on charges carrying a potential sentence of five years or more, regardless of whether they retain the House’s confidence. At first glance, the bills may seem laudatory, founded on the expectation of ethical standards for high constitutional office. Yet, one can clearly anticipate the gross impending misuse of this law towards establishing a hegemonic BJP rule in India, with the opposition governments regularly destabilized and targeted. These bills represent another instance of the Modi government’s use of perfectly legal and constitutional actions to advance authoritarian governance.

https://verfassungsblog.de/disqualification-bill-bjp-india/

[Frank Drackman]

A warning for my Kraut/Frog friend,
we don't give a (redacted) what any snail eating Eurotrash says about anything, Jeez, sometimes I wish things had gone different in the Ardennes December 1944

Frank

[hobie]

One refers to the Dutch derisively as Clogs, Frankie

[Swede425]

Ice Skating Dyke Pluggers.
Tulip Sniffing Clog Dancers.
Windmill Building Water Table Deniers.

[Swede425]

Those all came from a neighbor of mine with the last name of DenHarder.

[hobie]

My wife is from Denhelder

[Martinned]

Navy?

[hobie]

Very good, Martin! Her dad was in the merchant marines

[Frank Drackman]

and the Merchant Marines were in your mom....

[Mr. Bumble]

Hey, that's Queenie's schtick/shtick.

[Swede425]

I'm one of the few non-Dutchies in my small neighborhood near Holland and Zeeland, Michigan.

[Riva]

Don’t worry. In the US, the majority overwhelmingly rejected the Biden corruption and elected President Trump.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is 49.8% now a "majority"?

[ducksalad]

It's not just a majority, it's an *overwhelming* majority.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, something was certainly overwhelmed.

[Riva]

The stupidity is almost palpable.

[Riva]

Winning 31 states, plus one congressional district in Maine, is an overwhelming majority. Are you an election denier?

[ducksalad]

You know, if you'd quoted electoral votes in this response, I'd have called it almost a recovery from your embarrassing mistake.

But since the number of states is irrelevant, you only dug deeper.

[Riva]

You know, if you'd learned how to read and knew a little bit about the Constitution, you might not have embarrassed yourself with this abysmally stupid comment. I simply wrote "the majority overwhelmingly rejected the Biden corruption and elected President Trump." You (and your fellow moron trolls) assumed I was referring to the popular vote (which President Trump also won) because you're idiots. A president is elected in this country by winning a majority of states, my little ignorant trollish friend.

[David Nieporent]

A president is of course not elected by winning a majority of states.

[Riva]

Sorry, I was referring to the US Constitution. Not sure what reality you perceive in your broken little mind but you don't disappoint crazy Dave. Crazy as a crap fight in a monkey house.

[David Nieporent]

You were not, in fact, referring to the US Constitution, which makes no mention of counting states (unless the Electoral College doesn't make a choice and the vote is thrown to the House, anyway).

[Riva]

Electors vote in each state, those votes are certified by state and sent to congress. President Trump overwhelming won the states. Yeah, i know you’ll continue to be a trolling asshole but that’s to be expected. It’s what you do.

[David Nieporent]

Bot thinks New York and Wyoming count the same in a presidential election because each is 1 state.

To be clear, even if the bot were programmed to understand the constitution, which the bot isn't, the bot is also not programmed to understand the word "overwhelmingly." This was one of the closer elections in U.S. history by any metric.

Of course, all of this is a red herring because the claim was what " In the US, the majority" did, and that is unambiguously a reference to the populace, not the states or the electors.

[Riva]

No you stupid fuck. I simply mean that in terms of states, president trump won all the electors from 31 states. An overwhelming majority. He won 312 total votes. An overwhelming majority. In sum, he won, by an overwhelming majority.

While being an asshole is a choice, being a dumb ass however is far more serious and permanent condition for which you have no control. I can’t necessarily fault you for your stupidity. But being an asshole? You own that. And if one wants another example of your sheer idiocy, one need only consult another post in which you believe Alina Habba was appointed as a Special Counsel like the thug Smith. You really are a monumental idiot, aren’t you Crazy Dave?

[David Nieporent]

None of those figures are an "overwhelming majority." Being programmed to repeat it 100 or 1,000 times won't make it any more true.

[Riva]

You obviously don't want to admit your trollish errors here. Such is the troll way. But just curious, as for other issues, do you still believe Alina Habba was appointed as a "Special Counsel" like Smith?

[Riva]

And to further answer my crazy friend (and the gaggle of moron trolls) when, in the context of the 2024 election, President Trump won an overwhelming majority of electoral votes (he did 312) and an overwhelming majority of states (he did 31), it is irrefutably correct to say that the majority overwhelmingly elected him. Now will you idiot clowns please do me, and the comment section, a great favor by shutting the fuck up.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Literally nobody here believes you really meant the "overwhelming majority" of the Electoral College vote or the states he won or the number of Republican governors or anything other than the voters.

Everyone makes mistakes. It's human...

[Riva]

I think it’s painfully obvious that some trolls here may have originally assumed (because they’re asses) that I was referring to the popular vote. And, of course, even after being exposed as idiot trolls who couldn’t resist making asses of themselves by making an incorrect assumption, they continue the trolling even though they now fully understand that I was referring to states won in terms of the electoral vote counts certified to Congress. Asshole trolls never stop. That’s why they’re assholes.

[Josh R]

ObviouslyNotSpam:

Literally nobody here believes you really meant the "overwhelming majority" of the Electoral College vote or the states he won

Riva:

they now fully understand that I was referring to states won in terms of the electoral vote counts certified to Congress

It looks like Riva could be classified as "literally nobody."

[David Nieporent]

In any case, Trump also did not win an overwhelming majority of states or electoral votes.

[Magister]

312 is not that overwhelming a number of electoral votes, although it is the most electoral votes a Republican has gotten since 1988. Electors chosen before the election would of course vote for the candidate they were chosen for (many bound by law to do so), but they weren't the ones making the decision; it was the voters in each state who decided which ones would cast their votes for the candidate they were recruited for.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Crimea Riva is not capable of being embarrassed.

He's going to hit China before this is over...

[Riva]

The stupid is strong with you today.

[Frank Drackman]

312 to 226 sure is

[Joe_dallas]

Lets ignore all the corruption during the obama and biden administrations

[Martinned]

Like what? $Bidencoin?

[Joe_dallas]

martin - again ignoring the corruption during the obama and biden administration

[Martinned]

As far as I can tell the Obama and Biden-era corruption that MAGA made up is less bad than the stuff that Trump is bragging about every day, so I'm not sure what the fuck you're talking about.

[David Nieporent]

Don't worry; bookkeeper_joe isn't sure what the fuck he's talking about either. He never cites any specifics for any of his claims.

[Joe_dallas]

DN - feeling proud parroting leftist talking points in the usual attempt to whitewash the corruption.

JayTee highlighted some of the many you try to hide

[jay.tee]

Sounds like some selective memory there. Here’s a short refresher:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obama_administration_controversies

A lot of those are only disagreements or nothing burgers, but he had some pretty serious scandals: PRISM, Fast and Furious, firing IGs, weaponizing the IRS, using the IC to spy on a rival party’s campaign, Benghazi, lies about Afghanistan, Clinton Foundation/State Dept corruption, VA healthcare, Iran payments, Solyndra, and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Obama_administration_controversies

Same for Biden: botched Afghanistan withdrawal, “whipping” Haitians, Secret Service scandals, rampant 1st Amendment violations, Govt Disinformation Board, cocaine in the WH, racist policy implementations, weaponizing the IRS, using FBI to intimidate parents, using FBI to target Catholics, targeting journalists, weaponizing the ATF, and so on.

[David Nieporent]

Um, I don't think you understand the definition of "corruption." (Note that your Wikipedia links don't use that term; they use "controversies.") It's not synonymous with "policies I don't like" or "bad things happening." Some of those things are entirely fake; others of them have nothing to do with "corruption."

(The inclusion of "Benghazi" is just the chef's kiss. The GOP spent years investigating Hillary over that and couldn't find a single thing, and so then they investigated again. And again. And again. And nothing.)

[jay.tee]

David posts:
“Note that your Wikipedia links don't use that term; they use "controversies.”

In his partisan fever, David misses I wrote:
“A lot of those are only disagreements or nothing burgers, but he had some pretty serious scandals”

David posts:
“The inclusion of "Benghazi" is just the chef's kiss. The GOP spent years investigating Hillary over that and couldn't find a single thing, and so then they investigated again. And again. And again. And nothing.”

In his continuing partisan fever, David tries to bury the real scandal: Obama and Clinton lied to the country to cover up a terrorist attack, blaming it instead on Nakoula’s video.

[David Nieporent]

If that's what you think a scandal is, I would invite you to privately message me with your home address so that I can order a dictionary from Amazon to be sent to you.

[jay.tee]

Merriam-Webster’s definition fits quite well.

scandal noun

1
a: a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it
b: a person whose conduct offends propriety or morality
a scandal to the profession
2
: loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety : DISGRACE
3
: malicious or defamatory gossip
4
: indignation, chagrin, or bewilderment brought about by a flagrant violation of morality, propriety, or religious opinion
5
a: discredit brought upon religion by unseemly conduct in a religious person
b: conduct that causes or encourages a lapse of faith or of religious obedience in another

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scandal

[Martinned]

Meanwhile, in the EU the parliament has decided (as it has in the past) that it will not tolerate being bypassed under emergency powers even when it agrees with the underlying legislation.

The European Parliament decided to go ahead and take the Council of the EU to court after being left out of discussions about the major SAFE loan defence scheme, its press service announced on Wednesday.
(...)
SAFE, a €150 billion defence loan programme, was proposed by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in March to stimulate spending as soon as possible. In May, EU ministers gave their final approval, without consulting the European Parliament.
(...)
While the Parliament stresses that the “instrument has the full support of Parliament [...] It is about the legal basis that was chosen, which undermines democratic legitimacy.”

To skip parliamentary approval, von der Leyen wielded a part of the EU treaties (Article 122 TFEU), normally reserved for emergencies such as the Covid-19 pandemic, which speeds up the legislative process by reducing Parliament’s negotiation time significantly.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/defence/news/european-parliament-sues-council-over-e150-billion-defence-loan-scheme/

[Kazinski]

Lets consider a hypothetical, lets say a fed governor committed mortgage fraud, like taking out 2 mortgages within a 20 day period and claiming both homes as your principal residence, which is a federal crime.

And lets say the President wants her seat for an new appointee.

Can the the Administration tell her, if you resign, or do not contest your firing then you will not be prosecuted, but if we have to fire you and you contest it then we will Indict you and prosecute in order to vindicate our firing decision.

Obviously the answer is yes.

But what crime will people claim Trump is guilty of?

[Frank Drackman]

Like I've been charged with many times,
"being awesome"

[Martinned]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rex_non_potest_peccare

[ducksalad]

Can the Administration tell her.....the answer is yes.

True. Maybe someday we could also think about what presidents ought to do, rather than just what they can do.

[David Nieporent]

Extortion. Bribery. But unfortunately, SCOTUS gave him immunity for such acts.

[Commenter_XY]

I thought a president was immune when conducting official acts of office, not filling out mortgage papers in a private real estate transaction.

Is this lady cooked (pun intended)?

[not guilty]

XY, where does Kazinski's hypothetical posit that the President filled out mortgage papers in a private real estate transaction?

The conduct that Kazinski attributes to the President would clearly constitute extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 872, but prosecution of the President would be precluded by Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024). Not so with other officials who may have participated.

If the President conspired with his underlings to commit extortion, those officials could be charged with conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and, depending on who played what role, possibly as substantive offenders under §§ 2 and 872.

[Kazinski]

No its not extortion or bribery, exchanging official acts for official acts is not corruption or illegal.

The Rick Perry case is a good illustration of that.

The Supreme Court has been pretty hard on those creative theories and presidential immunity has nothing to do with it.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, have you read 18 U.S.C. § 872?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Have you? Where does it say that agreeing not to prosecute someone if they resign is extortion?

[Kazinski]

What thing of value is Trump trying to extort?

Like I said before that's what they tried to pull on Rick Perry, it failed miserably.

Nobody is stupid enough to try that again, well I guess you would be if you were in a position to try.

[not guilty]

The opportunity to appoint a crony is a thing of value. Members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve draw a salary. https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section10.htm?ftag=YHF4eb9d17

The fact that the salary would accrue to the crony successor does not negate that the threat to prosecute does not negate the extortionate nature of the demand.

[jay.tee]

You’re an attorney so you really have no excuse when you knowingly and grossly misrepresent a SCOTUS ruling.

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 6 hours ago

"Extortion. Bribery. But unfortunately, SCOTUS gave him immunity for such acts."

Parroting another blatant lie by a leftist -

[TwelveInchPianist]

Um, I'm pretty sure extortion and bribery aren't part of the President's duties.

[not guilty]

"Um, I'm pretty sure extortion and bribery aren't part of the President's duties."

Indeed they are not. But per the execrable decision of Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, ___, 144 S.Ct. 2312, 2334 (2024), the Executive Branch has "exclusive authority and absolute discretion" to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute. Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is "the special province of the Executive Branch," and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President, Art. II, § 1. And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Id., at 2335.

As the late Johnny Cash sang, "I don't like it but I guess things happen that way." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpImlSRSTBQ&list=RDhpImlSRSTBQ&start_radio=1

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? What's wrong with the Executive Branch having absolute discretion over which crimes to prosecute? That's how it's supposed to be.

[Kazinski]

Trump has now said if Cook doesn't resign he will fire her.

Nothing said about prosecuting, or not prosecuting.

[David Nieporent]

If the facts are different, then the analysis changes. Those weren't the facts in your hypo.

[Martinned]

David Allen Green, one of my favourite legal bloggers, just used some literary references (Nick Hornby, Lord of the Flies) to make a point about complacency.

So one can be tempted to think what is happening in the United States is eventually going to be alright.

That the constitution will resolve the issues, and the mid-terms are on their way.

And in terms of narrative, soon those “on the wrong side of history” will realise they are actually being the baddies and see the error of their ways.

Thesis and and antithesis will become a new synthesis.

There will again be an equilibrium.

Everything will be fine again.

*

The problem is that some conflicts never resolve, at least not without an absolute victory for one side and an absolute defeat for the other(s).

The current culture wars and cruel partisanship may not settle down to an agreed narrative, where one side admits they got it wrong.

The nastiness may continue, without there ever being a naval officer on the beach.

That the police and the stadium authorities really had been riding their luck all this time.

*

Trumpism is not going to go away, at least not easily.

An entire generation of people, many far younger than Trump, now know what it is like to exercise power without political, legal, or normative limits.

They see how the courts and the legislature can be made to cower.

They see that a codified constitution is impotent at setting limits, and in providing for checks and balances, without a sense of constitutionalism.

And in this situation, the political gatekeepers are not more useful than the old turnstile operators, adding more people to the crush.

*

Trump and Trumpism provide the most fundamental of challenges to constitutionalism.

And having tasted real, raw power, the Trumpists are not going to go away of their own accord: they like it here.

Unless and until Trump and Trumpism are defeated, there is no reason to believe constitutionalism will survive in the United States - or elsewhere with similar politics.

https://emptycity.substack.com/p/everything-is-going-to-be-alright

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://apnews.com/article/florida-alligator-alcatraz-trump-injunction-9dc2aa22f87a2a5ac8436918a8794d37

I don't think that merely impeaching 100 Federal Judges would be enough.

[Martinned]

Why not just abolish all the lower courts entirely? Nothing in the constitution requires them to exist.

[jay.tee]

Considering the ruling was based on a lack of any NEPA review, especially in that specific location, it makes sense.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fails to recognize that Trumpism is a reaction to the other side's excesses, which the other side does not want to acknowledge, fancying itself as being on the right side of history.

[Sarcastr0]

THE GOP HAS AGENCY.

[Don Nico]

He shouts and stamps his feet!

[bernard11]

Maybe, but he has to try something to get Brett to understand his (correct) point.

The GOP was not required to nominate Trump.

[tylertusta]

Reactionaries react. This isn't hard.

[Sarcastr0]

How does that mean the GOP isn't responsible for it's own actions?

[tylertusta]

Being able to predict what another party will do in response is an important skill to have- something that national Democrats don't seem to appreciate, it seems.

Any good History class will teach the root causes of WWII as including the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The passage of the Civil Rights Act didn't come out of nowhere; it was a reaction to the recent civil rights offenses that made the problem in the South impossible to ignore any longer. Any astute political observer worth their salt knows that the 2016 blockade of Merrick Garland's nomination wasn't started on a whim.

So, of course GOP voters have agency. But they also don't live in a vacuum, either. Populism didn't materialize out of nowhere. It was reacting to something.

Care to guess what the populist wave in the GOP is reacting to?

[Sarcastr0]

This is all utterly unresponsive to my question.

You're saying they're very clever and good at context. Maybe yes, maybe no.
But you come back to how it's not the GOP's fault what the GOP does.

How does that mean the GOP isn't responsible for it's own actions?

[tylertusta]

This is all utterly unresponsive to my question

I suppose if you didn't read the part of my comment where I answered your question then you would think that I didn't answer it.

But you come back to how it's not the GOP's fault what the GOP does.

At no time did I say this.

What Brett and I are saying is that fingers pointing like this- whether justified or not- misses the bigger picture.

If I stand on the sidewalk in front of your house and start cursing you out- making fun of you, your appearance, your family, etc. and then you punch me in the face, some would say that I deserved it. You are legally responsible for your assault, but I'm morally responsible for setting the circumstances of it. My understanding is that in some situations the law would take my actions into context, but you were the one who went to law school, not I.

(Indeed, I find it very fascinating that you do not understand this concept as someone left-of-center since the left regularly tries to make these exact same sort of arguments of a criminal defendant's personal circumstances when downplaying his or her criminal activities).

Populism in America today, as Brett said, was caused by the poor governance by our elites. Populist excesses are indeed the fault of the people who support those excesses, but turning a blind eye to what caused populism in the first place... is what caused that populism in the first place!

This is why, after WWII, the Allied Powers did not seek to a return to the same kind of harsh terms that were on Germany. They knew that populist demagogues like the Nazis found fertile ground among the resentment found in the post-WWI situation in Germany. Like France after the Napoleonic Wars, the terms after WWII were quickly set to allow West Germany to partly regain some semblance of dignity, join the Western powers, and to build durable institutions capable of resisting such dangerous movements.

[bernard11]

Care to guess what the populist wave in the GOP is reacting to?

Can't speak for Sarcastro, but I'm not going to try to guess, because I don't see anything for them to be so damn angry about. Sure, they don't like some things the Dems did, but that just calls for ordinary political action, not electing a tantrum-throwing ignorant crook.

[Sarcastr0]

This is overly structural. Yes, people now know if they get enough of a populist head of steam they can roll right over all the laws, regs, policies, expectations, internal controls, and the Constitution.

But that's always been the case with populist spasms. They also tend to be tied to a person.

Society at large isn't a fan of chaos and empty radicalism. There's social and political pressure rising. Trump's people trying to favor themselves structurally will only get them so far with a populist counter-movement.

Nothing's certain; maybe things will continue and we'll be right fucked. But the momentum is still towards a return to something with civic institutions. I'm not sure that means a decisive defeat or anything dramatic. Time marches on.

[Brett Bellmore]

And it's still a reaction to other people rolling over democracy themselves.

So they rolled over it waving around a gutted palimpsest of a Constitution, that judges have just construed to mean whatever couldn't be won at the ballot box or legitimately adopted by amendment.

They still rolled over it. Populism is the inevitable reaction to governments insisting on doing the unpopular, to the electoral system being rigged so that voting stops working. The public wanting immigration laws enforced for decades, and both major parties refusing to. The public wanting an end to racial preferences, and getting entrenched DEI instead. One unpopular policy after another shoved down people's throats.

You turn up the heat on the pressure cooker, you don't like the whistling from the relief valve, so you weld it down. And the more it bulges, you more you weld it.

And then you complain when it explodes.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It is a reaction, but it is an unprincipled reaction.

Obviously, one party "rolling over" democracy should be opposed by anyone who values democracy, but it should be opposed by strengthening democracy, not by going full Trumptard.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, I agree. Populism is a really stupid reaction. What can you expect, when the IQ of a group is inversely proportional to the number in it? NO genuinely grass roots large scale movement can be smart.

And it's even worse when, every time you try to put together a principled opposition movement, like the Tea party, it gets coopted.

Eventually you get populism because enough people decide that nothing well thought out and measured is going to work, that the best thing is to just blow things up, and then rebuild from the rubble.

I'm not the first person to observe that Trump wasn't seized upon to deliver a considered, measured program. He was seized upon to be a wrecking ball.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Neo nihilism.

[Jazzizhep]

I don’t often cheerlead a comment, but damn Brett: if your take doesn’t perfectly sum up how Trump, a blowhard, repugnant, narcissistic, and simply unlikable man got me to vote for him three times (never in a primary), nothing else will.

I also learned a new word; palimpsest.

[Sarcastr0]

"look what you made me do" is not a mindset you should embrace.

[Jazzizhep]

Didn’t say “made.”

[Sarcastr0]

Brett sure did.

[Jazzizhep]

CORRECTION: I voted for Trump twice.

[Bob from Ohio]

"simply unlikable man "

He's very funny and also seems to actually like regular people.

No "simply unlikable man" has been elected in the TV era, Not even LBJ or Nixon qualifies. Some were dull but all had some charisma and likeability,

[CountmontyC]

He is considered "unlikable" because he isn't of the left. Personally I would love to have him as a neighbor even if he wasn't rich. He strikes me as someone who would help out in difficult times and would invite you over when he was having a BBQ or party. I would compare it more to the Democrats being like the kid who wasn't invited to the big party that everyone else is going to screaming that he didn't really want to go to the party and that everyone secretly hates him.

[bernard11]

He is considered "unlikable" because he isn't of the left. Personally I would love to have him as a neighbor even if he wasn't rich.

I wouldn't like him even if he was "of the left." There's plenty to dislike before you ever get to political disagreements.

[David Nieporent]

He's considered unlikeable because he's a sociopath.

[Jazzizhep]

I get that most people who know him and have spent time with him think he is a very warm and charming person.

However, I haven’t spent time with him and his public persona is absolute garbage. The name calling and childish retorts are grating. I will never forget how he treated McCain and I am no fan of McCain. Simply disgusting.

[bernard11]

And it's still a reaction to other people rolling over democracy themselves.

So they rolled over it waving around a gutted palimpsest of a Constitution, that judges have just construed to mean whatever couldn't be won at the ballot box or legitimately adopted by amendment.

Horseshit, Brett. For the umpteenth time, your interpretation of the Constitution is not automatically, indubitably, correct. Those who disagree with you are not scheming to destroy democracy, they are interpreting the Constitution differently than you do, and doing so in good faith.

Get over yourself and your imagined conspiracies.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wave that palimpsest harder, Bernard.

Nobody can stop the courts from claiming that the 14th amendment really incorporated the ERA all along, and that the interstate commerce clause really was a grant of general regulatory power all along, and so forth, ad nauseum.

But people can stop caring what the courts claim, in response.

[bernard11]

Oh BS.

You're the one who claims that the easy way to understand the Constitution is just to read it. OK. Read this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Tell me what you think that means wrt women. Are they "persons?"

As for interstate commerce, it's well known that you have a very red ass over Wickard. Get over it. It was a sensible decision that I don't think you understand.

[Kazinski]

I don't much care for your principles, I have my own.

If Romney is a Nazi, I guess I'm a Nazi too.

I'm at least deplorable, beyond shame.

The principled moralist shtick just doesn't work anymore.

[bernard11]

Who called Romney a Nazi?

[Kazinski]

Here is an example from the WAPO.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2012/09/05/romney-ally-to-dems-stop-trivializing-nazism/

[Sarcastr0]

You have said candidate morality isn’t a voting issue for you.

[Riva]

What witty comments did he make describing the repugnant Biden administration lawfare and corrupt fabrication and weaponization of intelligence that began under Obama?

[Sarcastr0]

Pure, unengaged, whattaboutism.

This is why people call you a bot.

[Riva]

Not very witty, little communist girl that never smiled. And not responsive. It is not "whataboutism" you marxist clown. I am pointing out the "pure, unengaged" rank hypocrisy and lack of self reflection of legal professionals committed to the official corruption of lawfare and government abuse who are now grossly offended that the corruption and abuses are being exposed and corrected. Unable to muster a cogent response, the repugnant instinct of leftists to dehumanize opponents as "its" takes over. POS is much too mild a description for you.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, that and the "little communist girl that never smiled" glitch...

[Riva]

Do you think she smiles? She seems a little upset. Don't worry. Be happy. Plenty of lawfare and corruption for you trolls to cheer on elsewhere on the planet.

[jb]

On Riva's agenda this month: talking points on the intelligence "scandal" regardless of whether it has anything to do with the topic at hand.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Unless and until Trump and Trumpism are defeated, there is no reason to believe constitutionalism will survive in the United States"

More hysteria. Every liberal law commentator acts just like a 13 year old these days.

He's not even from the US.

[Martinned]

The boiling frog speaks.

[Kazinski]

I still have a well placed faith in our democracy.

Well placed because I voted for that.

People are just appalled that the bureaucracy and courts can't tie up our democratically elected President and Congress and keep them from fulfilling their mandate to cut the size and scope of the Federal government, and sending as many illegal aliens as possible home.

Europe is appalled because they don't want their own people to realize they to can get what they want if they keep voting for it.

[David Nieporent]

People are just appalled that the bureaucracy and courts can't tie up our democratically elected President and Congress and keep them from fulfilling their mandate

Um, if Congress had acted on any of this stuff, it would be an entirely different legal situation.

Also, how does one have a "mandate" when most people voted for someone else?

[Michael P]

Lots of people argue that murder is the most reliably reported and counted crime, because after all there's no question whether there's a dead body. However, DC shows that it can still be underreported, and that a corrupt government can delay dealing with that until a better government takes over: in this case, for five years.

https://freebeacon.com/crime/danger-to-public-safety-dc-police-misclassified-deaths-as-accidental-to-drive-down-murder-numbers-homicide-cop-alleges-in-lawsuit/

[Martinned]

Is that the same DC police that's been bragging about how much Trump has reduced crime in the last week?

[tylertusta]

Beat police officers are not the same as their bosses in City government.

[Sarcastr0]

Luckily, this 'Listen to the GOP not the facts crime is worse than the facts says' is not playing well, except among the already deeply committed.

[LexAquilia]

Where "facts" = "as reported by Democrats who have already been caught cooking the books".

Don't be such a hack. Be better. Do better.

[Michael P]

Why do you ask the impossible?

[hobie]

I think I heard Bondi saying DC crime was down 1500%

[TwelveInchPianist]

This brings up an interesting general question. People like to talk about the facts, the numbers, etc.

But how much weight should we give data reported by institutions or generated by studies where there's not a lot of transparency and we don't have a lot of insight into how it's generated?

[Sarcastr0]

We have plenty of insight on the data gathering.

The GOP saying it's all lies is nothing more than their usual attempt to work the reffs.

Meanwhile they destroy any attempt at integrity or transparency at the NIH and BLS. Do you object to that? No. Because you don't actually care about trust; that's just a rationale so you can justify this martial law trial balloon.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. If you say so.

[Bob from Ohio]

"martial law trial balloon"

Reaching Lathrop levels of paranoia now.

[bernard11]

Look, TiP. We know the GOP's MO.

Any time a report comes out that they don't like they immediately, as night follows day, call it fabricated, manipulated, incompetently done, etc. With no evidence.

So my position is simple: Prove it. Really prove it, not with some dumbshit response, but with actual, solid evidence.

Making accusations out of the blue is dishonest and disreputable, but apparently Trumpists don't care.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Isn't the burden on the guy defending the report to prove that its accurate, really prove it, not with some dumbshit affirmation, but with actual, solid evidence?

I mean, I have no idea if it's accurate or not.

[William of Brooklyn]

TwelveInch -- Exactly. Like Hamas.

[hobie]

Just like with Labor and the Fed, if you can just get the right people in charge of compiling the data, you can get all sorts of magical results, don't you think?!

[jb]

The casual reader of this comment might be led to believe that this has something to do with murder numbers being reported over the last few years, but the most recent examples are from the first Trump administration.

[jb]

Oops, I was wrong. There is one example from May 2021. The rest that are included in the Free Beacon reporting are all from the first Trump administration.

[Frank Drackman]

Borrowing from the late/great Cassius Clay/Moe-hammad Ali
"No Russian ever called me (redacted)"

[hobie]

"ROCHESTER, Minn. (KTTC/Gray News) – A white Minnesota mother accused of using racial slurs against a 5-year-old Black boy at a playground has raised over $600,000 for herself on an online fundraiser.

The woman, who identified herself as Shiloh Hendrix, has now increased her fundraising goal to $1 million on GiveSendGo, a Christian-based crowdfunding site.

Hendrix was caught on camera hurling racial slurs at a 5-year-old boy in a now-viral video at a park in Rochester.

She claims the 5-year-old stole items from her son’s diaper bag. Regarding the slurs, she wrote on her fundraiser, “I called the kid out for what he was.”"

https://www.kgns.tv/2025/05/05/more-than-600k-fundraised-woman-seen-yelling-racial-slurs-5-year-old-playground/

What interests me most here is the Christian Fund Me site. The woman amassed more than $600,000 in the first two days (currently at $800,000). The site had to turn off the comments section because the amount of foul language and racial slurs were so great that it had overwhelmed the language filters of the site.

I mean, it's no secret that the nation's white Christians (aka MAGA, aka you hayseeds here as well) are racist to the core, but I do enjoy a tidy example of it like this story

[Mr. Bumble]

Got a link to the video?

[hobie]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cg-FT5B5IZ8

[Mr. Bumble]

Thanks.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Same thing with St George Floyd, who OVERDOSED...

[David Nieporent]

Janitors are notoriously expert at forensic medicine.

[LexAquilia]

The Battle of Shiloh was a critical turning point in the Great Culture War of the 20'oughts.

It's when Normies, riding the Bug Light Massacre, rose up against the Left and took their another scalp... shifting the Overton Window back to the reality of and normalcy of the human condition and race realism.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Since the video went viral, Hendrix said she has received threats and is raising money to relocate her family."

Well, she can probably now afford to move to "Return to the Land" in Arkansas.

[Riva]

Hmm. Has anyone started a fund for the illegal alien charged with sexually assaulting a child who was recently caught on the Mall in DC?

[David Nieporent]

Bot reporting talking point without knowing that those charges had been dropped long ago.

[Riva]

You don’t have to be a dishonest asshole all the time crazy Dave. It’s just a personal choice for you. You can wake in the morning and decide “you know I won’t be a duplicitous asshole today.” Give it a try.

I wrote that the illegal (that would be the party not legally in the country) was detained on the Mall. That was on Aug 20. Not a long time ago. I said he had a record involving sexual assault of a child. He does. According to DHS, “This illegal alien from Mexico was previously arrested in January 2024 in Fairfax County for aggravated sexual assault of a child under 13.

He entered and had a final order of removal and chose to voluntary return- twice. Illegally entered 3 times.”

[David Nieporent]

I said he had a record involving sexual assault of a child. He does. According to DHS, “This illegal alien from Mexico was previously arrested in January 2024 in Fairfax County for aggravated sexual assault of a child under 13.

And then those charges were dropped., which is what I said. I'd call you a retard, but I suppose bots can only do what they're programmed to do.

[Riva]

An illegal who illegally entered the country 3 times, ignored a final order of removal, and had been charged with sexually assaulting a minor. A model immigrant. Almost on the level of Maryland Man. All he needs to do is join a gang and engage in a little human trafficking. Yeah you run with that issue stupid fuck. Have the democrats invite him to their next convention. Maybe Maryland Man can smuggle him back, if he’s not in Uganda. It’s sometimes hard to grasp how monumentally fucking dumb you really are.

[David Nieporent]

If you weren't a bot that wasn't programmed for it, you could just say, "Yeah, I was repeating something I was told without knowing the facts. I screwed up there, and I should learn to check my facts before posting."

[Riva]

Nothing I wrote was inaccurate. If you had any integrity, you would humbly write an apology to me.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Wow. The kid only got $340k.

[hobie]

Well, he was the victim after all.

[Jazzizhep]

Didn’t know only Christians had access the donation website.

I know the last time I used that word. I was dating a black woman, freakin’ incredible woman who was running track at a D2 uni, during the O.J. trial. The tape of Furman’s “audition” was just played. She begged me to say the word. I refused several requests. She then offered a little sumthin’ sumthin’ to sweeten the pot. I said it. I can’t recall ever saying the word out loud other than that one time.

That said, I have thought of saying it because I know how much it would probably get under the skin of the person to whom it was directed. If I really, really wanted to piss someone off, that would do it. I doubt it would be a five year old.

If she was charged with a crime related to using that word, I would donate in a heartbeat even though I am not a Christian. Sharmake Omar, the videographer, can’t believe she can get away with using words, “I thought she was going to get punished for this, but apparently not.”

She is getting punished in the all-too-typical sense of harassment and threats. Consequences baby.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

She is getting "punished" by people learning who she is.

Of course, many people don't care who she is, or are themselves the same--I wish more people would do the same and reveal their true selves.

[Malika the Maiz]

Put down the book, pick up the phone.

So it goes in the United States, where daily reading for pleasure has plummeted more than 40% among adults over the last two decades, according to a new study from the University of Florida and University College London.

From 2003 to 2023, daily leisure reading declined at a steady rate of about 3% per year, according to the study published Wednesday in the journal iScience…the percentage of Americans who leisure-read on a typical day has dropped from a high of 28% in 2004 to a low of 16% in 2023.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-08-20/reading-for-pleasure-on-steep-decline-study-finds

[Brett Bellmore]

Does it count if I use the kindle app on my phone?

[Malika the Maiz]

It seemed to but it also may have confused respondents into misreporting such activity:

“reading on tablets, computers and smartphones was not explicitly included in examples, making it unclear whether survey participants included it as leisure reading or technology use.”

[Mr. Bumble]

As always with polling the framing of the question matters.

[Malika the Maiz]

As always it matters somewhat, and as long as the methodology is transparent results can be useful.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm pretty much stuck using E readers, (My android tablet by preference, my phone just because it's on me.) because my aging eyes need larger type and bright light. Every once in a while I'll dig out one of my physical books, (Why buy for Kindle what I already own dead tree?) but then I need a bright reading lamp.

I've really come to appreciate LED bulbs, because you can take a fixture that's limited to just "60W" by heat dissipation, and put an over-powered LED bulb in it that lights up the room like a welding arc.

[Dr. Ed 2]

LED lights are blinking on & off 120 times a second.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, and as an engineer I actually understand why it's important that they do that. Doesn't really matter, though. 120 Hz is high enough that it's not going to cause anyone problems.

Not like those idiot LED headlights that flicker visibly even if you look straight at them.

[Moderation4ever]

I wonder how many people consider pleasure reading elitism? That why so many think a functionally illiterate President is acceptable.

[Frank Drackman]

as compared to a Demented one?

[Moderation4ever]

I would say that President Trump is both demented and functionally illiterate. So what is your point?

[Malika the Maiz]

21 August 2025
Russia has launched 574 drones and 40 missiles on Ukraine in one of the heaviest bombardments in weeks, Ukrainian officials say.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62wj8yje2eo.amp

July 29, 2023. Rally in Erie, Pennsylvania.

“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after we all together win the presidency, we will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled. It will be settled. The war is going to be settled. I’ll get them both – I know Zelensky, I know Putin, it’ll be done within 24 hours, you watch. They all say, ‘That’s such a boast.’ It will be done very quickly.”

[Don Nico]

Not news. DJT has already admitted publicly that he was wrong about his baseless optimism.
Stop gloating that more Ukrainians have been killed.

[Malika the Maiz]

Why do you take Ukrainian lives so cheaply that you supported a man who had such an unserious take on the subject?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Shortly after Biden wrapped up his press conference, his press secretary Jen Psaki issued a statement trying to explain what he meant:

"If any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, that's a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe, and united response from the United States and our allies."
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/1074466148/biden-russia-ukraine-minor-incursion

How we got to where we are. Who was "un-serious"?

[SRG2]

"But Biden!"

[Malika the Maiz]

Whataboutism is their life blood.

[Malika the Maiz]

This completely makes Trump comments more serious!

[Don Nico]

I NEVER voted for Mr Trump.
How did you become a mind reader? How did you become a side stepper?
Why do you gloat over killed Ukrainians?

[Martinned]

Realistically, the odds of you not voting for Trump, given your comments here, are much lower than the odds that you are lying about voting for him. Unless, of course, you were coincidentally in a coma three times in November 2016, November 2020, and November 2024.

[Jazzizhep]

I voted for Trump two times. I voted for Biden in 2020 because I thought he was a moderate.

Boy was I wrong. I wasn’t voting for Biden, and the person who was really running the country was far to the left of Obama.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Harris?

[Mr. Bumble]

"...and the person who was really running the country ..."
Of course we still don't know who that was.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"I don’t often cheerlead a comment, but damn Brett: if your take doesn’t perfectly sum up how Trump, a blowhard, repugnant, narcissistic, and simply unlikable man got me to vote for him three times (never in a primary), nothing else will."

So now it's two? I grant maybe a slip-up. OTOH, maybe with enough comments, it will go down to zero. Ha ha.

[Jazzizhep]

No it was twice. I don’t know what happened. You busted me and there is nothing else I can say about it.

[Malika the Maiz]

Cool story!

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump in March 2025:
"Well, I was being a little bit sarcastic when I said that."

Trump in April 2025:
Q: You said you would end the war in Ukraine on Day One.

"Well, I said that figuratively, and I said that as an exaggeration, because to make a point, and you know, it gets, of course, by the fake news [unintelligible]. Obviously, people know that when I said that, it was said in jest, but it was also said that it will be ended."

In fact, he said it at least 53 times during his election campaign, and it was obviously neither him being "sarcastic" nor speaking "figuratively": https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/25/politics/fact-check-trump-ukraine-war

In other words, the "public admission" you claim he's given is nothing but more of his usual bullshit, piled on top of the old bullshit. And you fell for it.

[Josh R]

DJT has already admitted publicly that he was wrong about his baseless optimism.

He's done it again with the Alaska summit and what has happened since then. Putin keeps on playing him for the fool.

[Martinned]

If there's no ceasefire soon Trump is really going to lose his patience though!

[David Nieporent]

Playing Trump for a fool is like playing the Pope for a Catholic.

[shawn_dude]

Trump said he was meeting Putin in "Russia" and then flew to Alaska. The guy is senile.

[hobie]

Promises made. Promises kept.

[Don Nico]

What are you whining about now?

[Malika the Maiz]

Trump’s fantastical promise and failure to keep it. The one you keep wanting to go away.

[Bob from Ohio]

A broken political promise! Why, where are my smelling salts?

[TwelveInchPianist]

And went out of their way to destroy an American factory far away from the action in western Ukraine. Time for the US to retaliate.

But none of the recent Presidents, including the current one, would do anything like that.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

If the American factory in Ukraine was making war-related things, it would have been "fair game", at least insofar as any attack made by the aggressor in an illegal invasion can be...

If Trump wasn't such a weak, pathetic human being, he would respond to Putin's insult simply by doing the right thing and helping Ukraine repel the Vlad the Invader.

[Jazzizhep]

Are we not already helping Ukraine? Or do you mean more help? More weapons? Maybe boots on the ground?

We are doing our part more than I think we should. This is Europe’s problem and they should man up before we step in.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Nobody but Trump knows what he's doing about Ukraine right now (and even that is questionable).

[Martinned]

Are we not already helping Ukraine?

The only way the US could do any less is if it literally imposed sanctions on itself. (Which, of course, it is doing in other areas of trade, so it's not entirely unthinkable that it might do that with Ukraine, but it's not exactly a sensible baseline either.)

[Jazzizhep]

So the almost trillion dollars in weapons we have GIVEN them isn’t currently helping?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Has Putin ended the war, yet? Nope.

[Jazzizhep]

Helping Ukraine has been going on for 3 1/2 years—starting under the feckless Biden. I guess he wasn’t helping Ukraine because the war never stopped.

Are you naturally that thick, or do you need to work at it?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Perhaps I should have put it the other way: Has Putin conquered Ukraine, yet? Nope.

Do you get it now?

Yes, the weapons we have been providing have been helping Ukraine, because Ukraine has not been conquered and erased from history (which, by the way, is Putin's goal). But we can certainly do more, because Putin still believes he can win.

Moreover, simply supplying weapons is the cheapest, easiest way the West could possibly contain Putin. No blood, just a bit of treasure.

[Martinned]

Your question was in the present tense, so I didn't think you were interested in how Biden supported the Ukrainian people against a ruthless war of aggression.

[David Nieporent]

Why not say "gazillion dollars in spaceships"? It would be equally as accurate.

[Jazzizhep]

Ok. I wasn’t close to the number. I should have looked it up before commenting. We are at $175bil in aid.

Doesn’t change my comment one goddamn bit. We are helping Ukraine. What more should we do?

[Krayt]

Are we not already helping Ukraine?

Weakly now. The Russian state media doesn't keep saying "Thanks, Gramps!" in response to Republicans backing off on supplies for nothing!

[Jazzizhep]

We are still fulfilling promises made by whoever was in charge in the last administration. If you don’t like it, blame them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

“If the American factory in Ukraine was making war-related things, it would have been "fair game", at least insofar as any attack made by the aggressor in an illegal invasion can be...”

IIUC the were not making war-related things, but even if they were, that doesn’t mean we should tolerate being attacked. The Russian military is also fair game.

[shawn_dude]

This isn't true. Biden did retaliate by releasing HIMARS and other more serious weapons to the Ukrainians in retaliation. Whether that was enough is debatable but it was definitely retaliation.

[David Nieporent]

Not only that, but Russia attacked an American factory in western Ukraine. Anyone remember the deeply unserious commenters here like C_XY saying that the "mineral deal" — i.e., Trump just trying to extort Ukraine — would actually function as a security guarantee because Russia would never attack Americans there?

[Commenter_XY]

Post peace agreement, yes, American companies and American workers working in UKR would be a formidable deterrent to RUS. We have American companies all over the world; not many Americans are killed by hostile powers. Doing so comes with a severe price. That is the deterrent.

It would be nice to see a peace agreement, David. It really would. I am pessimistic about the likelihood, though. Putin can win what he wants on the field of battle, and he is. This is a war of attrition; UKR will not win that war.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why just post peace agreement? Why should be tolerate having our assets attacked before then?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Putin is obviously reminding the Cuck-in-Chief who's really in charge...

[bernard11]

It would be nice to see a peace agreement, David. It really would.

There is no peace deal to be had, XY. Putin wants Ukraine - all of it. If he stops now it's just to rebuild his army, so he can start again in a few years, or months.

Putin can win what he wants on the field of battle, and he is. This is a war of attrition; UKR will not win that war.

They can't without help, which Trump refuses to supply. But the only way to get peace is to kick Putin's ass to Novosibirsk.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't love the Cracker Barrell redesign, but how the hell is it some anti-woke cause?

Is MAGA running out of stupid culture war shit to get mad about?

[LexAquilia]

Another Big Brand, another Big Bootlicking by the Corporate Left and their surfs.

[tylertusta]

Compared to most of the recent culture war battles, this fight is relatively tame.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's more like, "Oh, God, the MBAs are destroying another cultural icon. Can't they just stop, already?" The only 'woke' aspect is flying the rainbow flag while they destroy it.

Seriously, their whole thing, literally their whole thing, is being old-timey. They've got nothing else to differentiate themselves from any other chain. If you didn't want to eat sausage gravy and biscuits surrounded by stuff that looks like it came out of somebody's barn, why would you eat there?

And the worst part is, when they've destroyed Cracker Barrel, they will just move on to the next treasured franchise to run into the ground. There never seems to be any accountability, nobody says, "Look, you destroyed the last three companies you worked at, go mow lawns or something!"

[Sarcastr0]

I think you're just trying to make up your own cause to rationalize the ruckus.

'The MBAs did a bad redesign' is not actually what's bringing people into the streets.

when they've destroyed Cracker Barrel
Ah yes, it's not the angry idiots; they don't have agency.

[bernard11]

And the worst part is, when they've destroyed Cracker Barrel, they will just move on to the next treasured franchise to run into the ground. There never seems to be any accountability, nobody says, "Look, you destroyed the last three companies you worked at, go mow lawns or something!"

Get hysterical much?

Destroyed a cultural icon? Are you nuts? They changed the logo, redesigned the restaurants, and changed the menu, which you apparently didn't think much of anyway.

So what's the BFD? Either it will work or it won't. But one thing it's not is a plot by the MBA cabal to destroy restaurant chains.

[ThePublius]

Cracker Barrel has pulled a Bud Lite. They're eschewing their traditional American values and going full woke, LGBTQ+ rejoicing - exactly opposite of their customer base. There aren't enough LGBTQ+'s in the world who are interesting in dining there to make up for those who will abandon it. There's a huge opportunity for a competitor to step in, maybe even a brand new one.

My advice for Cracker Barrel - Sydney Sweeney to the rescue!

[Sarcastr0]

Well here is a bare assertion.

What specifically are they doing that you don't like?

I don't see anything about the logo that makes me think it's gay.

[ThePublius]

They're flying gay pride flags and have painted the rocking chairs rainbow colors. But I guess you missed that.

https://www.crackerbarrel.com/culture-and-inclusion/pride-page

[loki13]

So just to be clear. You are all angry because Cracker Barrel ... which probably has some of TEH GAYZ in their employment ....

had some of them go to a single day, in the park, at Nashville during gay pride, and took pictures of some people in one rainbow-painted rocking chair?

Not at a restaurant. Not flying pride flags. Just a single day, at a park. With some wholesome images. And a rocking chair.

Now, I'm normally a big fan of companies being involved in their local communities. Supporting the high school band. Supporting local school teams. Supporting the local gay pride parade. And so on. Seems wholesome and shows a good community involvement.

But apparently, you think that this is unacceptable. Okay. Is this really a Cracker Barrel thing, or a you thing? Would you have the same problem if they sent a chair and painted it like the flag (technically not appropriate, but who cares about that anymore) to support Flag Day? I think that would be awesome! Just like this.

I'm not going to be insulting, but I really dislike that you thought that this was an appropriate counterexample.

[David Nieporent]

had some of them go to a single day, in the park, at Nashville during gay pride, and took pictures of some people in one rainbow-painted rocking chair?

I mean, the Bud Light/Dylan Mulvaney thing was even less than that, and these people had a tantrum.

[Malika the Maiz]

LGBTQ+rejoicing!

Pubes advice to Denny’s, start a “no fairies welcome here!” ad campaign.

[LawTalkingGuy]

He's never even eaten there!

[loki13]

In fairness, given how long it takes food to come after you order ...

I'm not sure anyone has ever eaten at Denny's.

[LawTalkingGuy]

I had a great independently run diner on my college campus that was eventually replaced with a Denny's. It sucked.

One reason the Cracker Barrel thing is mystifying to me is that all the good American comfort food is at independently owned greasy spoons in small towns or tucked away in sketchy neighborhoods in a city. Being mad about Cracker Barrel changes is such a suburban/exurban complaint. Get real restaurants!

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the usual appeal of national chains: You're on a long trip, not familiar with the area. Sure, maybe there's some mom and pop restaurant nearby that has absolutely fantastic food, but you don't know about it. You stop at that greasy spoon you may get great food, you may get food poisoning.

But if it's a national chain, you know what to expect: No fantastic discovery, sure, but you're not going to be horribly disappointed, either.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well sure. But for that what matters is the food rather than the aesthetic. No one cares about McDonald’s aesthetic, just that it makes fries the same everywhere.

[jay.tee]

One of McDonald’s own benchmarks is their tomatoes look and taste the same no matter where in the world you are. On one hand, it’s impressive they can be that consistent. On the other, you have to wonder what that consistency costs in terms of taste and supply chains.

[Jmaie]

I know for a fact people eat there...a while back there was a ruckus at the Emeryville, CA Denny's. Black family was seated after a later arriving white family. Or served food later, can't remember. Anyways, community activists and a contingent of Oakland Longshoremen demonstrated in front of the place for a few hours, then went inside and had a meal...

Now if you're ever in Japan, their Denny's do it right.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Denny's -- once known as Sambos....

[David Nieporent]

Are you ever right about anything, ever? Denny's was in fact never known as Sambo's. When Sambo's went bankrupt, its hundreds of locations were of course all sold off. A handful of them became Denny's, but there was no connection of any sort between Denny's and Sambo's, and Denny's existed long before that.

[Frank Drackman]

Trying to find a correct Dr. Ed 2 comment? Charlie Brown did better with Lucy and the Football

[Jmaie]

Mmmm, I loved me some tiger cakes...

[Jazzizhep]

I didn’t know Sambos was a restaurant. I only know if the children’s book.

My copy of Little Black Sambo is safely hidden from anyone who visits. The tolerant ones have deemed the book racists. I can’t risk being seen in the vicinity.

[not guilty]

According to Wikipedia, Sambo's was an American restaurant chain, started in 1957 by Sam Battistone Sr. and Newell Bohnett in Santa Barbara, California. Though the name was taken from portions of the names of its two founders, the chain also associated with The Story of Little Black Sambo. Battistone and Bohnett capitalized on this connection by decorating the walls of the restaurants with scenes from the book, including a dark-skinned boy, tigers, and a pale, magical unicycle-riding man called "The Treefriend".

The chain filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 1981. All locations except for the first in Santa Barbara either closed outright, or were renamed after being purchased, effectively ending the chain's existence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sambo%27s

[shawn_dude]

Well, this was news to me! But just to remind everyone (or tell younger folks for the first time), Cracker Barrel had a well-earned reputation for being homophobic. It got bad enough in 80s and 90s that there were gay kiss-ins in protest. The taint from that has lingered with their brand for decades. Looks like they're pulling a Carls Jr. Once the MBAs take over, they decide queer cash spends just as good a bigot cash and try to rehabilitate their homophobic reputation. But if they're not careful, they'll pull a Target and be in a worse position than before. Time will tell.

Anyhow, that just be what the Christian Nationalists have their snowflake panties in bunch over--their anti-gay icon has abandoned them and is willing to let queer people eat biscuits and gravy alongside everyone else.

[ThePublius]

They hired some woke chick as their marketing person, and she's remaking CB according to her views, and lying about what the customers asked for. She's full of shit and will ruin this brand and business, just like that jerk who wrecked Bud Lite.

CB stock down 12% since.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"jerk who wrecked Bud Lite."

Bud Lite is still very much around and is still the shitty light beer of choice for many many many people.

[Jazzizhep]

Wrecked =/= Destroyed

[loki13]

FYI, the jerk who wrecked Bud Light? Look in the mirror.

It wasn't any "the jerk." It was a lot of "jerks" who were whipped up by other jerks into a fine, frothing, mess. Did you ever actually research what the whole kerfuffle was about? The one that got all your blood so angered? Allow me to remind you.

Bud Light was doing promotions for March Madness. They did numerous promotions with influencers (including Dylan Mulvaney) and sent her a single can of Bud Light with her face on it.

So jerks seized on that ... and the rest is history.

Just to recap-
Bud Light is owned by AB InBEV, the world's largest brewing company.
The new number one in America, thanks to the jerks, is ... Modelo Especial! I'm sure that the jerks love that ... until it is deported. Anyway, it is owned by .... wait for it.... AB InBev. Okay, it's a little more confusing, since Constellation Brands owns the distribution and marketing rights in the US. IRONY!
All those other brands? Coors? That's Molson Coors. MIller? Molson Coors. And so on.
In general, if you're a REAL 'MURIKAN, you're probably drinking a Belgian (Brazilian) Beer (AB InBev) or you're drinking a Canadian (Molson Coors).

Ahem. The point of all of this? Drink better beer.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Maybe it's because I came of drinking age during the beginning of the IPA boom so my tastes ended up being heavily influenced by them, but Bud Lite, Miller Lite, and Coors Lite, are indistinguishable to me.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Like making love in a canoe, as they say...

But it's worse than that, because most beers are now more brands than beers. Read the fine print on the label and you will see where the beer was actually brewed. Few beers are still "imported" from their original location these days. It just costs too much to transport (mostly) bottled water from one place on the planet to another...

[Bob from Ohio]

"IPA boom so my tastes ended up being heavily influenced by them"

Good lord, you like IPAs? Just try chewing hops then. Or dirt.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Not as much anymore. But it was the thing in my 20s because it seemed like that was on tap on everywhere. But breweries have gotten much better at making good tasting lagers and pilsners.

[shawn_dude]

No, it's not your age. Bud Lite and its ilk have always tasted bad. Low carb beers suck because the flavor is leeched out along with the carbs, though you can get a fairly low carb beer in your standard Guinness so it doesn't have to always be the case. I think maybe people wouldn't believe it was low carb if it didn't taste like something was missing.

Drink more Guinness.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Guinness is great. And the NA version isn’t too bad either. But bud, miller, etc is ideal for things like baseball games

[shawn_dude]

I read that to mean they're lighter in flavor and not as "heavy" as Guinness on a hot day. When I lived in warmer climates, I went with Corona (full carb version). These days, at my advancing age, I'd go for a spritz cocktail.

[Mr. Bumble]

Mostly they all suck. I'll stick with Yuengling.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That’s a good choice.

[Frank Drackman]

I've drunk Dos Equis since Val Kilmer ordered one as Jim Morrison in "The Doors" (Tri-Star, 1991), I've pretty much dedicated my life to reliving his, absent the Heroin Overdose.
Drinking one now, actually, (in Iowa, had a Hamm's last night at a local watering hole, as bad as I remember it from 1982) lets see, Dos Equis,
"Product of May-He-Co"
like the late/great Fernando Valenzuela.

Frank

Frank

[Kazinski]

I'm not a lager guy, so I don't much care, but beer brands, including Bud Light have made it marketing law that beer is sold by convincing consumers that they are what they drink. That's why all the beers are nearly indistinguishable in taste.

Well consumers didn't want to be that.

And yes, I still buy some InBev brands like Elysian when I can find it, or Heineken brands like Lagunitas, or one of the few remaining independents like Sierra Nevada or Deschutes.

I started making my own beer in 1992 before micro breweries were a thing, at least in Texas, but before that my beer was Miller Light, John Madden was the anti-Dylan Mulvaney.

[Commenter_XY]

Now that is something I can wholeheartedly agree with = The point of all of this? Drink better beer.

[jb]

LOL, Republicans' brains have completely melted.

Some executives make a branding decision that you don't like* and your default reaction is to blame it on "woke" or "the libs" even though there's nothing in the rebrand that has anything to do with any liberal values or messaging. Let me give you a hint: people can do dumb things that have no political valence whatsoever. The fact that you insist on viewing the world through a lens where "Republican == good" and "liberal == bad" just shows how polarized and reactionary you've become.

*and, honestly, seems kind of counterproductive to me as well.

[David Nieporent]

that jerk who wrecked Bud Lite.

Christopher Rufo?

[David Nieporent]

They hired some woke chick as their marketing person, and she's remaking CB according to her views, and lying about what the customers asked for.

This is all a complete fiction.

Also, Cracker Barrel's financial performance has nosedived in recent years, so "remaking" it was a good idea. (Whether any particular change was a good idea is another question. Having eaten at one once in my life, I have no opinion with regard to that, and no stake in the matter.)

But what precipitated the tantrum was the redesigned logo, not anything else.

[Life of Brian]

But what precipitated the tantrum was the redesigned logo, not anything else.

Speaking of complete fiction: they're also remodeling the interiors to effectively match the sterility of the logo. That's more than just something in the corner of the menu you can squint at and get over -- that's a large chunk of what made the whole experience unique and interesting. Example before and after pics in this article.

[bernard11]

If people don't like the decor that's fine, but going apeshit over the LGTBQ+ non-issue here is deranged bigotry.

[not guilty]

Cracker Barrel has an unpleasant history with LGBT folks. https://www.salon.com/2023/06/12/bigotry-was-the-blue-plate-special-how-cracker-barrel-went-from-anti-gay-to-angering-the/

I like their food, but I quit patronizing them over that issue for a while. I resumed after they changed their bigoted policies. I hope that they recover from their recent doldrums.

[not guilty]

Folks who worry about the Cracker Barrel logo have too much time on their hands.

Or they just need something else to kvetch about.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"But what precipitated the tantrum was the redesigned logo, not anything else."

They removed the barrel, and they removed the cracker. What's left?

[ThePublius]

Now I want to go eat there. I've never dined at a Cracker Barrel. There are two locations about equidistant from me, 45 minutes away or so, one in R.I. and the other north of me in MA. The MA location is easier, traffic wise, as there's a bridge under construction in RI and the traffic can be awful. Maybe today.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"They hired some woke chick as their marketing person, and she's remaking CB according to her views, and lying about what the customers asked for. She's full of shit and will ruin this brand and business"

"I've never dined at a Cracker Barrel."

WHAT.

[Sarcastr0]

You sure are showing your ass again today!

'I'm mad about a flag at a place I do not go to.'

How do you live like this?

[loki13]

"I've never dined at a Cracker Barrel."

Point of order. If you've been there, you wouldn't say that. No one would say that they have "dined" at a Cracker Barrel.

Correct usages:
1. I stopped at a Cracker Barrer when I was drivin' from Mobile to Jacksonville.

2. I got some quick breakfast at a Cracker Barrel. Can't beat those biscuits!

3. I ate at a Cracker Barrel, because I wanted some country fried steak, not them Chilis fajitas again.

You do not dine at a Cracker Barrel.

[Josh R]

They opened one in Camarillo, CA. I liked the food and went back multiple times. I think that qualifies as dining.

[loki13]

It was a joke. Mostly. About the use of the word "dining."

I've eaten at Cracker Barrel many times, although it's been a minute. They are (as noted above) a fixture along many highways, especially in certain geographic areas.

They are perfectly cromulent. I would even say that they are pretty good for breakfast. Or were- I can't comment about recently since it's been a decade.

It's more about "dining." I don't think of eating fast foot, or fast causal, or quick meals at chains (whether it's Cracker Barrel or Applebee's or whatever) as "dining." While technically correct, "dining" carries an associated meaning that you don't normally associate with eating a meal (especially breakfast) at those places.

"For our first date, we dined at Cracker Barrel," sounds more in irony than in common usage.

[Josh R]

You could say the same thing about eating at any chain restaurant (e.g., Olive Garden or Red Lobster). But there are many people who think of dinner there as dining and resent the "elites" who look down on them. And, they likely are justified.

[loki13]

Except ... I wouldn't say the same thing about any chain restaurant.

In fact, the two examples you listed? Olive Garden and Red Lobster? Those would definitely pass the usage test. Outback. Texas Roadhouse.

Sonny's. I'd have to think on that one.

It's not an elitism thing- but thanks for being an ass. I'm going to point out to you that the person who talked about dining at the Cracker Barrer had never eaten there, whereas I have ... many times. But I wouldn't say I dined there. Nor would the people I ate there with.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that back when I was eatin' at the Cracker Barrel, I wasn't dining out very much. And I wasn't talking to people about "dining at the Cracker Barrel." But thanks for "common man-splainin'" that to me.

Because yes, I can remember when I had to mentally add up every single item in the grocery cart as I was shopping. So maybe get off your own high horse.

KTHXBYE

[Life of Brian]

Dude's fuse gets shorter by the second.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

That is what usually happens with fuses, isn't it?

[Life of Brian]

Not before they're lit.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/short%20fuse

[Josh R]

I don't think of eating fast foot [sic], or fast causal, or quick meals at chains (whether it's Cracker Barrel or Applebee's or whatever) as "dining."

Olive Garden and Red Lobster? Those would definitely pass the usage test. Outback. Texas Roadhouse.

The distinction between Applebee's and Olive Garden escapes me. These are all casual dining restaurants.

[loki13]

If the distinction between Applebee's and Olive Garden escapes you, then you really shouldn't be lecturing people on elitism.

Olive Garden is where you take your mom after church.
Applebee's is where you go with the softball team after a game.

Now, any thing else you need to "common man-splain" to me with marketing speak like "casual dining." Perhaps the difference between a Wafflehouse Cheesteak Melt Bowl and Sonny's Pork 3-Way (which is not a euphemism).

[Josh R]

If the distinction between Applebee's and Olive Garden escapes you, then you really shouldn't be lecturing people on elitism.

Wow! The softball team goes to the local pizzeria, not Applebee's (or Cracker Barrel).

[Commenter_XY]

Agree, and I lump in Red Lobster in that category too.

Have dined (sorry Loki13) in many different CB's in my travels; 80% of the time it is for breakfast.

[William of Brooklyn]

Loki -- Between Cracker Barrel being "cromulent," and your reference to Olive Garden, a careful reader might think you're making a sly allusion to Oliver Cromwell. And I'm with you. If I had the chance to speak to the marketing department, I might well intone, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken?"

[shawn_dude]

Agreed. I've only eaten at them maybe twice, both on road trips in the South, and both times only for breakfast due to convenience. Though, I was also curious about what the experience would be like given their infamously homophobic reputation. (This was a decade after they'd been rightly eviscerated in the media for treating customers badly.) My experience was it was like any greasy spoon diner that served good grits, eggs, and biscuits but was only worth it in a pinch on a highway. There are better places to eat for breakfast that won't make me wonder if they spit in the gravy.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"I don't like the term woke because I hear woke, woke, woke, you know, it's like just a term they use," Trump said. "Half the people can't even define it. They don't know what it is."

But just hours after making that statement, he used it multiple times in a town hall on Fox News.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/21/1189016049/woke-desantis-trump-black-culture

[Malika the Maiz]

Podcast host Joe Rogan has continued to hammer Donald Trump and his administration over their handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. On Tuesday, the influential commentator slammed Trump over his repeated claims that the scandal is a “hoax” that’s been “perpetrated by the Democrats.”

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/shows/top-stories/blog/rcna226387

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Shhh!

[Frank Drackman]

I know he's a billionaire and that counts for something, but if you haven't noticed, Joe Rogan's a roided out Muscle Head, who I was amazed to find out was an actor, and even more amazed that he's a Comedian, he's about as funny as an Abortion. Most entertaining interview he did was with one of his Beaner Comedian friends and I got obsessed with counting the "Nome Sane"s gave up at "Nome Sane" #300 (about 1/2 hour mark)
Now Steve Banyon? THAT's a Podcast, that "we're going Mid-Evil on these guys" never gets old

Frank

[shawn_dude]

You'd think more GOP shills would be distancing themselves from this authoritarian mess they voted for but good on Rogan for being ahead of the curve.

[Kazinski]

I saw a clip of Joe Rogan saying the other day he thinks the moon landing is a hoax.

I'm not going to say he never says anything interesting but he is a little prone to conspiracy theories.

They did release the redacted Maxwell interview today.

[Bob from Ohio]

Saw him last night on News Radio reruns.

Let's just say he was no Phil Hartman.

[BrotherMovesOn]

In fairness, nobody can be Phil Hartman.

[Armchair]

So, California's going to go for a hard gerrymander. And New York is trying to follow. But...what then?

By my math, the GOP could pick up at least 14-15 seats in the small and medium GOP-controlled states if they did a hard gerrymander to respond. The Democrats can't respond well there...those small-medium states they control are already gerrymandered to the extent they can. They might get one more seat out of MD.

If it's a full out gerrymander "war"...the democrats are going to lose.

[tylertusta]

In order to achieve those gerrymanders in CA and NY, they'd have to dump their anti-gerrymandering provisions. They happen to be popular in both states.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I read that the California plan, at least, will have to go before the voters, so if the plan is approved we can safely say that the plan is more popular than the anti-gerrymandering provision.

[Brett Bellmore]

Last poll I saw out of California had the redistricting proposal going down in flames... In California. Nation-wide, it's pretty popular with Democrats.

So it's looking like it's just part of Newsom's campaign for the 2028 Democratic nomination.

[loki13]

We'll see. It's just started.

Californians' approval of Trump is under 30% and falling. I doubt it will get better before the proposal is put to the vote. I expect that between now and then, voters in California will understand that this is a vote on the Trump gerrymandering effort for the midterms.

But maybe not! Personally, I want to see Texas and Trump punished for what they have started - because in game theory, you kind of have to. But I also hate where this is taking us.

I guess things have to keep getting worse before they get better. And from that frame of reference, I guess it's good that Trump is in office, because ... well, it looks like we can depend on him to try and keep making things worse. So there's that?

[Brett Bellmore]

In game theory, what Texas is doing WOULD be the punishment, since California was gerrymandered first. It's even a moderate punishment, since California is already gerrymandered worse than Texas aspires to.

But I do agree that we're not doing anything about gerrymandering until it gets so bad everybody is totally sick of it.

[loki13]

I already did a thorough explanation of this in another thread.

Just because you are desperately trying to spin this in your mind because you NEED to find blame, that doesn't make it so.

Boundaries are drawn up every 10 years in accord with the census. That's what we have ALWAYS done. Always. Now, Trump has demanded that the red states gerrymander to give him more House seats in midterms (and they can to that thanks to a 2019 SCOTUS decision).

None of this is under any dispute. Trump has demanded red states redistrict to try and save the House because he is unpopular, and because midterms are tough even if you aren't.

So we know that this is not normal. We know that Trump has demanded it. We know that Texas is the most prominent and first (but not only) red state to buckle.

And we also know that California ONLY IS DOING THIS BECAUSE TEXAS IS DOING THIS. We also know that other blue states have gone on the record and stated that they are only considering doing it BECAUSE OF WHAT TRUMP HAS DEMANDED.

For you to keep retreating to your fantasyland literally demands that you ignore reality. Which is an increasing feature of the world we live in.

What are you going to sell us next? "If only it wasn't for those dastardly Dems, the Trump administration would have released the Epstein Files by now!"

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

[Brett Bellmore]

And I have already explained this upthread: California has for a while now been, by any measure, gerrymandered worse than Texas is proposing to do. They didn't wait for Texas to do that, they've been gerrymandered for decades now. And, again, gerrymandered worse than Texas will be if they go ahead with this proposed map.

The commission didn't change that, a gerrymander is defined by the map, not who drew it.

So, no, it's not a case of California doing it only be cause Texas is doing it. It's a case of California doing it even worse because Texas has decided to do it at all.

So, sure, Texas is in the wrong. California is in the wronger.

[loki13]

No, you are making stuff up, again. This literally cannot be explained any more simply.

Texas is NOT retaliating against California.

Once again. Trump has demanded red states do something that we don't do- redistrict (gerrymander) without the 10-year census. Do you understand this?

This is not in dispute. This is well-known. This is Trump demanding that red states do something that is ... let's say a severe escalation of anything we've seen before. Texas isn't "doing it" because of California- OR ANYONE ELSE. They are doing it because TRUMP DEMANDED THEY DO IT BECAUSE OF MIDTERMS.

Okay? Can you at least ... you know ... look it up? It's not a secret. The House GOP has been complaining about it.

So that's the baseline. This is a process started by Trump- and carried out by red states (most notably, but not exclusively, Texas) and is not "in response" to any particular problem or issue other than Trump trying to maintain control of the House in midterms.

Those are the facts.

Good? I notice you keep avoiding this.

So, what California has proposed (and other Blue States are now looking at) is RETALIATION for this unprecedented act. That's the game theory.

But this has now been explained multiple times. It can't be explained any more clearly. If you wish to make up stuff - feel free. Just remember that conversations between adults usually requires a basis in a shared reality. If you don't want to partake, I'm good with that. But don't keep peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.

(Finally, for all of your cherry picking, the 2024 election results nationwide ...
the GOP received 50.6% of votes cast in House Elections.
the GOP received ... wait for it ... 50.6% of the seats in the House.)

[jay.tee]

“Trump has demanded red states do something that we don't do- redistrict (gerrymander) without the 10-year census. Do you understand this?”

You’ve started from a false premise. Historically, this isn’t correct. Mid-cycle redistricting wasn’t uncommon at all in the 19th century, didn’t happen at all in the 20th century, then picked back up in the 21st century with Texas and Colorado redistricting after the 2002 elections. A number of states (e.g., NC, PA, FL, and VA) have had maps tossed by the courts and mandated to off-cycle redistrict.

So, while Texas redistricting mid-cycle isn’t a common practice, it’s also not unprecedented.

“This is not in dispute. This is well-known. This is Trump demanding that red states do something that is ... let's say a severe escalation of anything we've seen before. Texas isn't "doing it" because of California- OR ANYONE ELSE. They are doing it because TRUMP DEMANDED THEY DO IT BECAUSE OF MIDTERMS.”

This IS in dispute. The DOJ informed Texas it has four unconstitutionally created districts per the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Petteway v. Galveston County. Of course, Greg Abbott was more than happy to comply; of the four identified districts, three are held by Democrats and one is vacant but formerly held by a Democrat. Subsequently, Trump jumped in to suggest Republicans should gain five seats. However, as you well know, Trump has no authority to force Texas to redistrict nor how it should redistrict.

This is far from the black and white issue you’ve presented.

[David Nieporent]

Last poll I saw out of California had the redistricting proposal with strong support. Here's just one of many:

https://x.com/VanceUlrich/status/1958888820038148554

I can't say that Brett is lying, because if there's enough polls then at least one is statistically likely to be an outlier, and the news bubble that people like Brett exist in probably showed him that one and not any of the others. But Brett's take is factually incorrect.

[loki13]

But if Brett didn't personally ask each poll respondent the question on the poll, and get their responses, how does Brett know that the poll ever existed?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, then it may pass, and hopefully will be the 10 ton beam that breaks the camel's back, because that map is going to be one of the most egregious gerrymanders in the history of gerrymandering. While Texas' proposed gerrymander that this is 'in retaliation for' is less of a gerrymander that California's current map.

[loki13]

If you keep repeating that lie, will you believe it eventually?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not a lie, is the problem. California actually IS gerrymandered worse now than Texas proposes to be. If you use an honest measure of gerrymandering, rather than that 'vote efficiency' metric that isn't actually measuring gerrymandering at all.

[shawn_dude]

The success of Texas' redistricting and whatever additional craziness the Trump administration gets up to between now and then, along with the GOP-control Congress' tacit approval, will all calculate into how Californians receive this ballot measure. I'm in the "hold my nose and vote in favor" camp largely in agreement with Loki's position of game theory requiring it.

And note that Democrats were favored to retake the House before any of this happened so even if the GOP wins a Gerrymandering war by one or two seats, that still may not be enough.

[David Nieporent]

If I were a Californian, which I am not, I would vote for it precisely because it's designed to be retaliatory rather than preemptive, and as such is at least potentially de-escalatory.

[Kazinski]

As a California native who still spends a lot of time there, I can see even liberal Californians saying "Ehh, I think we are Democratic enough."

But both the GOP in Texas and Dems in California are taking risks with reducing their safe seats.

[shawn_dude]

So, if I get your point correctly, you think that liberals are admirably pro-democracy (little-D) and prefer non-partisan districts. I agree. This state voted for a non-partisan redistricting body under a Republican governor supported by Republicans and Democrats. So here! here! Something you and I agree on.

But if I rephrase your statement to liberal Californians thinking we are [d]emocratic enough on a national level, well, no. Red states are far and away the biggest fans of gerrymandering holding the distinction of having 11 out of 15 of the worst gerrymandered states in the Union. And those same California liberals might not like to see Texas harm its own liberal citizens to capitulate to Trumps demand to give him 5 more seats at the expense of every disfavored group in the county. While you give high praise for California's liberals, I think they're also pragmatic.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Right-wing influencers including Chris Rufo, who unfortunately has success in this area, is trying to turn the logo/redesign of a mid-tier chain restaurant typically right off freeway exits into a culture war flashpoint because of “woke.”

Which I actually appreciate. Because it is great evidence that much of the modern American right is an irrational emotionally driven movement oriented around being upset that things don’t look exactly as they remembered them looking as a kid.

Like it’s a kitsch chain restaurant dude. WTF cares. You can still go to Bob Evans for farm food Applebees if you need to see shit all over the walls. Or gasp! There are probably local restaurants with better food that had a “farm” aesthetic!

[Michael P]

Woke rebrands are wasteful and counterproductive. Nobody likes the Land'O'Lakes logo where the American Indian has been totally erased from her historic territory. PepsiCo renamed Aunt Jemima but the new name sucks, so they still have to advertise it as "Same great taste as Aunt Jemima." "Ben's Original" rice is too ashamed to use its original name.

And now a dumb CEO has decided that the right way to put her chop on the company is through destroying lots of shareholder value by throwing out core elements of the company's brand. The board of directors should be looking for both a new CEO and some good lawyers.

[SRG2]

Why is the rebrand woke?

[Martinned]

Because it wasn't done by Jeffrey Epstein.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because in addition to getting rid of all the things that bring people to Cracker Barrel, they're puking rainbows all over it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

People go to Cracker Barrel because it's okay food no one will be picky about and it's off the highway. It's not that special.

[Brett Bellmore]

I happen to like the decor, being on the older side it brings back childhood memories. "Oh, yeah, I remember using one of those."

[Sarcastr0]

they're puking rainbows all over it.

Just looking for things to get mad at.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Imagine a customer who actually has strong opinions on whether their waiter has 37 pieces of flair. And get actually mad when they only count 15. Then imagine that customer having strong influence over American politics.

[Brett Bellmore]

Imagine a customer wanting to get get the same old reliable meal in the same old reliable environment, and somebody insists on spilling rainbow paint over everything.

[Malika the Maiz]

And did this happen?

[Estragon]

“Rainbow paint”

FFS. They didn’t even change the font or the colors. You people are unhinged.

[David Nieporent]

Utter fiction, of course.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“Nobody likes the Land'O'Lakes logo where the American Indian has been totally erased from her historic territory.”

Idk about you, but when I buy butter I’m just checking to see if it’s salted or unsalted.

[Don Nico]

LTG,
There is more to deciding on the quality of butter than whether it is salted or unsalted.
Try different brands and see for yourself.

[Michael P]

He's apparently trying to set everything to the lowest level that anyone can attain. It's a very communist perspective.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yes. I'm a communist because I'm not picky about butter brands, particularly on the logo front. You are a very smart person.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Wouldn't a "communist" position involve government/collective ownership of the means of butter production?

Maybe words having defined meaning is itself "communist"...

[Malika the Maiz]

Collective understanding of words is pretty Marxist.

[Brett Bellmore]

I stopped buying Land'O'Lakes because almost every box I bought, the corners were missing from the sticks. They must have been shorting each package by at least an ounce.

Meanwhile the store brand was a full pound, and cheaper to boot. That was enough to make their disappearing the Indian maid just piling on.

I did drop Aunt Jemima because they canceled her, though. It's just so damn gratuitous, removing every black face from product packaging.

[Malika the Maiz]

How racially obtuse do you have to be to try to cast dropping Aunt Jemima as “removing every black face from product packaging.”

[Brett Bellmore]

How racially obtuse do I have to be to cast removing every black face from the packaging as removing every black face from the packaging? Not very obtuse at all.

[Malika the Maiz]

No, very. The “mammy” stereotype of black women was a pretty well documented racist trope.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, did I complain about when they modernized her appearance in the 80's? No, I did not. I complained about their completely canceling her.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, especially by that Klansman Al Jolson

[David Nieporent]

The same people complaining about removing her picture have a tantrum that there are too many black people in tv commercials for consumer products. (Don't get them started on the interracial families in those commercials.)

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Umm, did you weigh the package?

[Brett Bellmore]

No, but Somebody else did. About the same time I noticed it.

What, you think maybe they'd enlarge the packages, and then put the same amount of butter in? Just for yucks? No, they were shorting the packages for a while, which was enough to make me drop them, and since the store brand is cheaper, I've no motive to go back and see if they stopped doing it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Your link was about someone weighing Kirkland-brand butter from Costco...

[Brett Bellmore]

I guess I missed that, but, yeah, that's what the sticks looked like on the ends.

[Frank Drackman]

Have you tried the "Old (Redacted) Jim" Shoe Polish??
Only comes in one color, you figure it out.

Frank

[hobie]

Institutions that are key to hillbilly ideology like WWF and NASCAR have rebranded constantly over the years, but it's the rebranding of neegro themed products that bring the patriot tears out

[Michael P]

I never knew that the World Wide Fund to Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund, another example of a dumb rebrand) was "key to hillbilly ideology". Live and learn!

(Some of us are alert enough to have noticed that the wrestling people switched their name and initials over 30 years ago in response to legal action by the aforementioned key to hillbilly ideology. Others are evidently not so alert.)

[hobie]

I intentionally used WWF to prove my point

[Michael P]

Your point that ... the wrestling people rebranded because of legal action by loonie lefties, therefore something hayseeds something?

Get a real point.

[Frank Drackman]

Ah, the old "I meant to do that" defense, not bad, use it all the time.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Nobody likes the Land'O'Lakes logo where the American Indian has been totally erased from her historic territory"

I know. You can't cut out her knees and tape them behind the butter box she's holding.

[Malika the Maiz]

It’s like uncle wasn’t a derogatory term for black men. Mikie probably prefers “boy.”

[Mr. Bumble]

????

[Malika the Maiz]

You’re not this uninformed are you?

[Mr. Bumble]

I understand the reference to boy but not to uncle?

[Malika the Maiz]

Blacks were expected to refer to white males in positions of authority as "Boss" or "Cap'n" -- a title of respect that replaced "Master" or "Marster" used in slave times. Sometimes, the white children of one's white employer or a prominent white person might be called "Massa," to show special respect. If a white person was well known, a black servant or hired hand or tenant might speak in somewhat intimate terms, addressing the white person as "Mr. John" or "Miss Mary."

All black men, on the other hand, were called by their first names or were referred to as "Boy," "Uncle," and "Old Man" -- regardless of their age.

https://jimcrowmuseum.ferris.edu/question/2006/september.htm

[Frank Drackman]

and Ironically, using "Boss" in regular conversation has been adopted by the woke Bernie Bro's.

[David Nieporent]

Not after Donald Trump gets done rewriting history!

[Kazinski]

Most Asian countries they call all they call old people Uncle or Auntie. Pretty common in Hawaii too.

I get called Bong a lot in at home and in Cambodia, which means older sibling in Khmer.

[bernard11]

Nobody likes the Land'O'Lakes logo where the American Indian has been totally erased from her historic territory.

Nobody? You mean you don't. Most people don't have opinions about the logos on boxes of butter.

[David Nieporent]

Nobody likes the Land'O'Lakes logo where the American Indian has been totally erased from her historic territory.

Not a single person on the planet gives a fuck what the Land'O'Lakes logo looks like.

[bernard11]

Brett does.

He thinks the Land'O'Lakes business is part of the plot by the MBA cabal to destroy certain businesses.

(Funny. I have an MBA, but have never been asked to join the cabal. Not sure why. Antisemitism, maybe?)

[hobie]

""It takes away from heritage. When you're 81 years old, you kind of remember the way the place started," Pensacola resident Joseph Crawford, a Vietnam veteran, told Fox News Digital. "And this has taken away from it.""

""Yeah, I think Cracker Barrel is fixing to Bud Light themselves," Brandon Gisclair told Fox News Digital."

Cracker Barrel has a special place in the heart of Bubba because it got caught denying service to neegroes back in the 80's. If that heritage is lost, what could happen next?!

[tylertusta]

Leftists like you will not rest until every piece of joy and nostalgia form someone's childhood has been destroyed.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Oh my god he admit it!

[tylertusta]

Yes, I admit that I have fond memories of going to Cracker Barrel when I was a child.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Me too. But I'm also an adult who doesn't think that changes to a chain restaurant is part of a leftist effort to destroy "every piece of joy and nostalgia" from childhood. If you think that leftists are destroying your joy from childhood it might be a sign that you're simply unhappy with your life, you wish you were a kid again, and are having a hard time accepting that both you and the world are growing older. But instead of dealing with the reality of aging in a healthy way you've decided it's a political conspiracy against you.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I don't think it's a plot to destroy every piece of joy and nostalgia. It's more like not giving a damn about joy and nostalgia, the marketing people don't see how they can justify a 20% staffing increase if they're not visibly doing anything.

So they just randomly switch stuff around, and don't care if it destroys the brand. Why should they care? They'll just move on to the next ship when this one sinks.

[bernard11]

Why should they care? They'll just move on to the next ship when this one sinks.

Amazing how many marketing experts we have here. Maybe give the new stuff a chance?

BTW, in March of 2021 the stock was at $172. Today it's $54.40, having lost more than 2/3 of its value. Maybe it's time to try to do something different, do you think?

[tylertusta]

Newsflash: People don't like it when you destroy things that they like. That's not "unhealthy aging." That's called being a human being.

Hobie's motives for wanting to destroy things that people like are plain as day. It ain't a scare quote "plot" if they admit it.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah. But they also don't turn it into a grand political conspiracy by others. Sometimes restaurants change for the worse or even close. It can suck. But going onto say any negative change is somehow related to leftists destroying joy is over-the-top hysteria that is a clear coping mechanism to blame someone else for your inability to deal with not being a kid again.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's true, sometimes restaurants change for the worse. I think it's interesting to ask why, when all a company needs do to remain successful is to just keep doing what they're already doing, they make changes instead.

And then don't apologize and change back when the customers complain.

My theory is that it's the curse of professional management, who fresh out of management school, do what they were taught, and don't have any stake in the company's survival to discipline them.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"My theory is that it's the curse of professional management, who fresh out of management school, do what they were taught, and don't have any stake in the company's survival to discipline them."

This is absolutely true for large organizations of any type.

[hobie]

Your theory may be true. Six Sigma, Lean, and ISO 9001 all demand constant reinvention or 'improvement' whether it is needed or not

[bernard11]

My theory is that it's the curse of professional management, who fresh out of management school, do what they were taught, and don't have any stake in the company's survival to discipline them.

Not all managers are fresh out of school, you know. Some, especially the more senior types, have been there a while. Of course you are right that there is a type of manager who thinks he's a genius, and changes things for the sake of change, without a clear idea of what the problem is, if any.

One cause is the idea that a "manager" can manage anything, which gets people moving around and running things without much experience on the ground.

OTOH, lots of companies need to change, or at least are better off because they do.

If one were a fan of markets, one would think that the bad types would gradually be weeded out, and the overall effect beneficial.

[bernard11]

I think it's interesting to ask why, when all a company needs do to remain successful is to just keep doing what they're already doing, they make changes instead.

I hope you don't think all Cracker Barrel "needs do to remain successful is to just keep doing what they're already doing,"

I doubt the shareholders agree.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I hope you don't think all Cracker Barrel "needs do to remain successful is to just keep doing what they're already doing,""

Not at this point, obviously.

There does seem to be something pathological happening in the restaurant industry. We had one of those A&W/Long John Silver combos not far from here, and I pulled in a couple years ago hoping to get fries and a root beer shake. They were out of root beer. A&W was out of root beer!

Why was I at A&W to get fries? The Burger King across the street didn't have any!

My late sister, a professional chef, once told me that the biggest sin in the restaurant industry was running out of something on the menu. I think maybe some serious sinners brought what we in the automotive industry have come to call "Just too late" inventory systems to the fast food chains.

[tylertusta]

"Oh my god he admit it!"

"...clear coping mechanism to blame someone else for your inability to deal with not being a kid again."

Says the guy who just backhandedly accused me of racism in one post and then that I'm just being hysterical the very next one. Merited impossibility strikes again!

[LawTalkingGuy]

"backhandedly accused me of racism"

What? Where did I do this?

And are you saying that linking changes at Cracker Barrel to leftists destroying every piece of childhood joy isn't actually over-the-top hysteria?

[hobie]

They get prickly when exposed, Law Guy. We all know this.

[David Nieporent]

But they also don't turn it into a grand political conspiracy by others.

New Coke was a woke plot!

[Magister]

OMG! The letters of "woke" are right there in the name "New Coke"! In the right order, even!

[Sarcastr0]

destroy

What an extremely shallow, minor, and largely aesthetic definition of destroy.

Looking for shit to get mad at.

[Malika the Maiz]

Tyler is still hurting from McDonalds getting rid of the McDLT. Those cultural Marxists, now the cold side ain’t cold. Forced integration!

[tylertusta]

I think the removal of the McRib from McDonald's menu was an unforgivable sin.

#neverforget

[hobie]

Forced integration!
HaHa!

They do miss Mayberry, don't they?

[Brett Bellmore]

The McDLT was pretty good, but the real killer was when they stopped using the soy protein in their burgers because somebody got picky about them not being "all" beef. That soy had been soaking up some of the meat juice that now gets left on the grill, the burgers were better with it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

When MAGA says "dance", they dance.

[Sarcastr0]

Specifically Chris Rufo

[LawTalkingGuy]

Who unfortunately has this bizarre power to make politicians, institutions, and supposedly neutral media to go along with it despite announcing his plans super-villain style. He might actually be the true heir to Trumpism. Someone who is transparent in their lack of sincerity seems to move people more than the faux sincerity of a Cruz, Vance, or DeSantis.

[Estragon]

“Someone who is transparent in their lack of sincerity seems to move people more than the faux sincerity of a Cruz, Vance, or DeSantis.”

This is a key observation. Rufo obviously doesn’t have a lot of nostalgia for Cracker Barrel (I believe the direct quote is “who cares?”) but it is curious how some around here feel the need to reach for the rather flimsy and maudlin justification “oh, but my rosy memories from childhood!”

[David Nieporent]

To be fair, all these people have is childhood memories; they don't actually go there as adults. That's why CB is trying the redesign: because their sales are way down.

[Estragon]

“being upset that things don’t look exactly as they remembered them looking as a kid.”

I do think that is part of it, but not the whole story. Remember when they put the impossible meat sausage on the menu back in 2022 and the huckleberries got all upset? It was definitely mentioned in these parts. I suppose one could narrowly construe that as a nostalgia/Peter Pan kind of complaint as well— because of course they didn’t have impossible meats back in the day. But it wasn’t as if they took chicken fried steak off the menu to make room for the plant sausage. So I think free floating antipathy towards anything remotely coded as liberal— even something as trivial as a logo redesign (keeping the same colors!)— can activate these people.

[Martinned]

It's tribalism pure and simple. Seven Minutes of Hate.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Dang. Inflation?

[Martinned]

🙂

Misremembered...

[LawTalkingGuy]

That's true. Bud Lite was the same shitty beer with the same design and got a trans influencer to endorse it on TikTok and they went absolutely psycho over it. Which is very strange behavior overall.

[Estragon]

US Rep Byron Donalds (R-FL) has weighed in on this controversial issue:

“In college, I worked at @CrackerBarrel in Tallahassee. I even gave my life to Christ in their parking lot”

[Malika the Maiz]

That is gold.

[Frank Drackman]

Queenie has a new crush, sorry there MTM, don't think Byron swings that way, you're thinking of the former Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum

[loki13]

"I even gave my life to Christ in their parking lot”

I am 95% sure that is a euphemism for getting a hand job.

If it had been a Waffle House parking lot, he might have seen Christ's full glory.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He gave his soul to the MAGA movement.

[David Nieporent]

This is ridiculous. MAGA supporters don't have souls.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I think they pass along the souls to Satan or something.

[shawn_dude]

Cracker Barrel has a history of being homophobic.

They fired LGBT employees and had a company policy not to hire anyone but heterosexuals. They've been widely seen as the place bigots could go for a rainbow-free breakfast. And now, horrors or horrors, the free market has decided that queer cash is green, too. (well, used to be green... we've gayed that up too! Have you looked at US paper money recently? rainbow colors!)

[Mr. Bumble]

Is this your personal experience or do you have a source for your claims?

[David Nieporent]

Right-wing influencers including Chris Rufo, who unfortunately has success in this area, is trying to turn the logo/redesign of a mid-tier chain restaurant typically right off freeway exits into a culture war flashpoint because of “woke.”

Rufo expressly said on twitter the other day that he couldn't care less about this issue and didn't even think it was woke but nevertheless supported it to send a message that his mob was out there with metaphorical pitchforks and torches ready to act whenever they felt like it.

[Michael P]

Democrats still embrace Jim Crow.

https://x.com/goparlington/status/1958663148770120028

This is less letting a mask slip and more making it clear that old white lefties continue to be very upset about "uppity" Black people leaving the white people's plantations.

[hobie]

Where exactly is this conclusion of yours displayed in that post?

[Michael P]

https://x.com/Jaaavis/status/1958691986283581852

Winsome Earle-Sears is for you (well, not hobie specifically). Abigail Spanberger is for they/them and for shrugging at negative coverage.

[Moderation4ever]

Agreed that this is pretty far off base.

[LexAquilia]

Now that John Bolton has been Roger Stone'd and Peter Navarro'd, how long do you think he'll become the next Left's cause célèbre?

[tylertusta]

I give it 50/50 odds that there will shortly be a line of lawyers outside his door offering their free legal services to defend him.

[Krayt]

He already was made a left hero during Trump 1, when he disagreed and was imnediately declared an enemy. CNN immediately adopted the war hawk, in its role as contrarian.

[Martinned]

I can't find a source now, but if memory serves John Bolton got caught taking way too much money from Iranian opposition-in-exile types ages ago, even before he worked for Trump. So this may well be a "he did the crime and he should do the time" type of situation. (I don't know. For all I know the DOJ hasn't even decided yet which crime he allegedly commited.)

[loki13]

It's the new hotness.

Decide on the criminal.

Figure out the crime later.

[Estragon]

Very clever to start with someone reviled by the political opposition

[Bob from Ohio]

"Decide on the criminal.

Figure out the crime later."

Basically what AG James dd in the fraud case.* Or Wills in Atlanta. Or Jack Smith in the DC case

"Yes, DN, it was a civil case, not a crime.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Willis messed up by not identifying the correct crime and trying to rope in a bunch of people. A false statements charge against Trump for his phone call to The GA Secretary of State would have been provable.

[Bob from Ohio]

Willis messed up by hiring her lover.

[jay.tee]

Her completely unqualified, overpaid boyfriend. And sanctimoniously lied about it.

[David Nieporent]

That completely derailed the prosecution, but even before that, it was a total mess. There was no need for the extended and expanded process, except to keep Willis's face on the news longer.

[Mr. Bumble]

Unfortunately.

[Kazinski]

If anyone has classified documents stashed at home its John Bolton.

[shawn_dude]

Didn't Trump declassify those with his mind too? Or maybe Bolton picked them up in the Mar a Lago bathroom for light reading and wanted to finish them later?

(Wouldn't that be an interesting defense? "I picked them up in the bathroom at Mar a Lago after Trump said they were declassified.")

[hobie]

Us Libs want nothing to do with that warmonger. Same with Comey.

Regardless, I was under the impression that going after a political figure for mishandling classified docs was considered lawfare.

[ducksalad]

When the Sinaloas put a hit on their former members in a breakaway cartel, my only concern is whether innocent bystanders got hurt in the crossfire.

[ThePublius]

wrong place

[Longtobefree]

Right time?

[Ska]

Right beer. Michelob.

[loki13]

Schaefer. The one beer to have when you're having more than one.... case.

[hobie]

24 count cases of Schaefer got me thru middle school

[loki13]

Hehehehe.

[Moderation4ever]

In my morning newspaper, The Wisconsin State Journal, I read about a man convicted of his seventh OWI offense. Now I think a seventh OWI offense is pretty good evidence of a drug addiction, the drug being alcohol. While I find homeless people disturbing, I don't find them anywhere near as scary as a person with seven OWI convictions. Seeing someone sleeping in a doorway or ranting to themselves in a public space is unpleasant. Having a drunk run a red light or forcing me off the road could be life threatening. So let us spend less time worrying about a person being a drug addict and worry more about what the drug addict is doing.

[ducksalad]

Don't know how things work in Wisconsin, but I would have thought that by the 3rd conviction or so, one of the conditions of probation or parole would have been a long-term ban on driving a vehicle at all, regardless of sobriety.

It's not about the alcohol addiction. It's about the refusal to stop driving motor vehicles.

[Frank Drackman]

The morning after I get drunk I have to do 2 things,
1: Find my Car
2: Take back the one I drove Home (HT R. Dangerfield)
I've probably driven "Drunk" a 1,000 times in my 63 years, (doesn't really take much to get .08) and gotten exactly 1 DUI, when I was 20, (drinking age was 19 then) didn't have any tolerance, blew a 0.18 (and chunks) I think driving my car into a ditch was a "Clue"
You see, there was a time before Ubers, OK, well there were Cabs, but then you need one to come back the next day,
Back when they used to have DUI checkpoints (remember those?) I never got hassled, and I'm one of those drivers Cops just ignore, even in my ZO6

Frank

[Moderation4ever]

Frank an estimated 13K people die each year from accidents involving a drive who is DUI. Be thankful that you are not one of these people or the person who caused the death of another. My point is that we worry about the drug addict passed out in the street or who dies from Fentanyl and yet think little of a driver who get his 7th DUI conviction. The man got a three year prison sentence. There was a time in this country where your third conviction for shop lifting could put you in prison for life.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"blew a 0.18 (and chunks)"

Cute name for a dog.

[Brett Bellmore]

I recall mom and dad arguing in the car back in the 70's, because dad had too much to drink at a party, and insisted on driving home. Finally he got so mad he pulled into a parking lot to really argue with her, and said, "Give me one good reason I should let you drive!".

"You just parked at a police station."

He was pretty meek after that.

[Magister]

One way things work differently in Wisconsin is that the first one is a civil charge, not a criminal one.

[ducksalad]

That's weird. I knew that in some states speeding tickets are civil offenses rather than criminal, but DWI seems way above that level.

Here in TX speeding and even non-moving violations are criminal offenses. Minor ones, but you still have to plead guilty or not guilty, and if neither you nor the city/county backs down it actually gets to a jury trial.

[Martinned]

It's not my native language, but I don't think that's what "nitpicking" means.

Seventeen days ago, President Donald Trump made a dramatic claim in an interview on the business news channel CNBC. As part of his July trade agreement with the European Union, he said, the EU gave the United States a $600 billion present he could spend however he wanted.

“They gave me $600 billion. And that’s a gift,” he said. “That’s not like, you know, a loan, by the way. That’s not a loan that, oh gee, three years comes up, we have to pay it back. There’s nothing to pay back. They gave us $600 billion that we can invest in anything we want.”
(...)
Trade experts were highly skeptical of Trump’s claims, especially because the European side had said in July that the $600 billion figure referred to private-sector European companies’ “intentions” to invest in the US over time rather than some sort of lump-sum EU handout to the Trump administration. But it wasn’t possible to definitively debunk Trump’s narrative at the time of the CNBC interview, since the US and EU had not released an official joint text on what had been agreed between the two sides.

The two sides published a “framework” on Thursday. It’s brief and vague – but it shows there is no $600 billion gift.
(...)
Asked for comment on the gulf between how Trump described the $600 billion and what the official document says about it, White House spokesperson Kush Desai responded that this was “pointless nitpicking” about Trump’s “historic win for the American people.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/22/politics/fact-check-trump-eu-us-gift

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I can confirm your understanding.

But that a Trump Administration spokesperson was speaking at all is also a pretty good clue that something false was being said.

[hobie]

Since I lived in Portugal for 10 years I can confirm that Europeans don't buy our stuff...especially cars and trucks. They prefer they're own products, oil, gas, booze etc. Even if the tariffs were zero no one would still buy American. So can anyone tell me what America got out of all these dealings?

[Martinned]

The Dutch have a persistent trade deficit in goods with the US.

In the first three quarters of 2024, Dutch companies exported goods with a value of 28.2 billion euros to the United States. Meanwhile, the total value of goods imported from the US was 44.4 billion euros. That means that the Netherlands had a trade deficit of 16.3 billion euros with the US in that year. That is more than double the deficit in 2019. The import value of US crude oil and natural gas was higher, in particular.

(For context, in recent years we shut down our own gas production because it was causing earthquakes.)

https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2025/09/trade-deficit-with-us-due-to-mineral-fuel-imports

[Martinned]

So can anyone tell me what America got out of all these dealings?

The US exports services to Europe, and it exports weapons. So what America gets out of these kinds of "deals" is that Europe continues to put off developing its own full-blown weapons manufacturing capability, and that American digital companies have additional ammunition when they're trying to avoid getting fined for breaking European data privacy and digital markets laws.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, according to Scottie Bessent, Trump got $100 billion in additional tax revenue from American businesses, which I'm sure he'll be spending very wisely.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess if you're an Idiot you'd consider the EU buying 2,200,000 barrels of Oil a day from the US "Not buying our stuff"
You know who's "Stuff" I'm not buying?
Yours
and here's where I get to pretend I'm Queenie
"It's "their" not "they're", boy, what a Maroon, an M-bicile, a Hay-Seed!!!!!!!!

Frank

[John 4]

(He says while making innumerable basic errors in a post that seems to be written by someone who has only recently learned English.)

[Jazzizhep]

And again, you people take literally what should be figurative. I mean fact checking whether Trump said the EU was going to personally give him $600bil for him to put in his bank account is hilarious.

The EU is going to invest $600bil over the next three years. No, investing isn’t a “gift.” But now we are fact checking the meaning of gift. Just as hilarious.

[Martinned]

Wait, your objection is that people take literally the thing that Trump insists they should take literally? Are you high?

[hobie]

Try not to comprehend MAGA thinking, Martin.

[Jazzizhep]

If you really took Trump to mean he was personally enriching himself to the tune of $600bil, you certainly would have been calling him out for violating the emolument clause.

Also, one can literally use the word “literally” in a figurative manner.

“I was literally going 300 mph to get here on time.”

That doesn’t change the fact it was a stupid fact check and even more stupid to think it is a “Gotcha, I caught you in a lie.” But TDSers are gonna TDS.

[SRG2]

I don't think people would believe Trump was being literal when he said it was his money to spend. They are entitled to think he was being literal, and hence, lying, when he said that then EU was in some senses gifting the US the money.

Of course, to the cultists, Trump can never lie, just as to Biblical inerrantists, the Bible is never wrong nor contradictory.

[Jazzizhep]

I think Trump is the most unpolished president in the era of broadcast media. Nobody has been more uncouth and self aggrandizing at the same time. He acts like fool much of the time.

I can fully accept that a person like Trump is told “EU is investing $600bil” and thinks “look I got Europe to give me $600bil.”

Think of Obama saying there are 58 states in the Union. Was he lying? Well he said it, right? He said something factually inaccurate so he must be lying.

Now contrast that with Obama saying “you can keep your doctor.” I am intelligent enough to understand one was a lie while the other was a brain fart. Trump has lots of long-lasting brain farts.

[John 4]

"I can fully accept that a person like Trump is told “EU is investing $600bil” and thinks “look I got Europe to give me $600bil.”

Just to be clear, that makes him a moron. The POTUS should understand such basic things.

No one in good faith thinks Obama actually thought there were 58 states though. That's an important difference. At least for the people living in reality.

[Frank Drackman]

it was 57 states, don't pile on.

[Jazzizhep]

I guess you didn’t read my previous comment.

I think Trump is the most unpolished president in the era of broadcast media. Nobody has been more uncouth and self aggrandizing at the same time. He acts like fool much of the time.”

Anybody, in this day and age, who still thinks Trump meant EU was giving him personally $600bil is the moron.

[SRG2]

Obama's "56 states" line was not quite that - when extremely fatigued he said "50...6 states", which was more likely to be 50 corrected to 46.

What you call Trump's brain farts were until recently Trump's complete indifference to the truth which necessarily means that if he said something untrue he didn't care whether it was true or false, and hence is FAPP lying. Most recently? Partly following that pattern, partly dementia taking a firmer grip.

[Jazzizhep]

Obama said 50…6 states

He did not say 56 states.

Got it.

Sure Trump lies—an attempt to deceive. Do you really think he was trying to deceive Americans into believing the EU was going to give him $600bil to put in his bank account? If you do, you’re the moron.

I know he says idiotic things. Why couldn’t he just come out and say ”I got the EU to invest $600bil over the next 3 years?” It was idiotic for him not to. That doesn’t mean he was trying to deceive.

[David Nieporent]

I know he says idiotic things. Why couldn’t he just come out and say ”I got the EU to invest $600bil over the next 3 years?” It was idiotic for him not to. That doesn’t mean he was trying to deceive.

But it does mean that, because he didn't get the EU to do what you want to pretend he meant, either!

[ThePublius]

He said he was in 57 U.S. states. Here's the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

[not guilty]

The 57 states remark was obviously mistaken. There are, however, more than 50 delegations (mostly by states) to a Democratic National Convention, and I'm sure that then-Senator Obama had solicited support from every one of them.

I wonder if that was in the back of his mind.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

To this day, Trump actually believes numerous things which are objectively, demonstrably false.

Trump derangement isn't a syndrome; it's a fact.

[Estragon]

Yeah, “my uncle told me a story about having the unabomber as a student” is my current favorite. Just wrong on several levels, but Trump undoubtedly believes it to be true at this point. This is called “confabulation” and can be a sign of the onset of dementia.

On a completely unrelated note did you know Fred Trump died of Alzheimer’s? He started to noticeably lose his marbles in his late 70s.

[Bob from Ohio]

So cute, people who denied Biden's problems until the infamous debate [or later!] now care about Trump.

Like Epstein, your concern is totally phony.

[Estragon]

“your concern”

I mean… he did actually say all that stuff about Uncle John and the Unabomber. And I do think at this point he believes it. However you want to go about minimizing that is your business, but this comment seems to be more about your lack of concern than anything.

[Estragon]

I’ll also say here that “concern” is the wrong word here.

“Grim amusement” might be closer. And let me just add that the amusement does grow when you show up here in a flopsweat wanting to talk about concern trolling, instead off the 78 year old losing his marbles right in front of our eyes. Honestly, It’s laugh or cry at this point.

Do you think Don believes that his uncle John told him a story about teaching the unabomber? The uncle died in ‘85, btw.

[Bob from Ohio]

"your lack of concern"

Of course I'm not concerned. Screwing up an anecdote's source happens at every age.

Dude answers more press questions in a week than Biden did in 4 years. No "lid" at 4 pm either.

[Estragon]

“anecdote's source”

Haha. Uhhh, wouldn’t that imply he heard the story from another MIT professor who he is confusing with his uncle? Someone who would, necessarily, have to have told him that story a full 11 years, minimum, after Uncle John had passed? And, that would have to be a HARVARD professor, not a MIT professor, right?

As I said— however you want to minimize this, internally and here, is your business. But thanks for the LOLs along the way.

[Estragon]

“Like Epstein”

Wait, I thought that was over.

[Bob from Ohio]

You are the one who brings him up.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You literally just brought him up.

[SRG2]

Equally cute are all those people who insist that Biden was gaga from early on in his presidency while claiming that Trump is cognitively unimpaired.

Then there are those of us in the real world who thought Biden was losing it well before the first debate, and think that Trump is clearly losing it now.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Biden seemed okay during his last State of the Union address, which was just over three months prior to his infamous debate performance in June 2024.

But I didn't see any evidence before the debate that he was "losing it". I just thought he was getting old and suffering from typical old-man-itis. That was enough for me to oppose him running for re-election.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Man! that "Dog Faced Pony Soldier" comment in 2020 wasn't a clue?

[David Nieporent]

and think that Trump is clearly losing it now.

Trump lost it years ago. He was already mentally ill in 2016. Is it getting worse now? Of course — as it does for pretty much anybody at his age. But he hasn't had "it" to lose since the oughts.

[Bob from Ohio]

" He was already mentally ill in 2016. "

Not just dementia, but mental illness!

[bernard11]

Nice that you understand, Bob.

[SRG2]

Well at least you know what it's like to have been a Democratic supporter of Biden towards the end - denying the obvious cognitive decline and deficiency. How does it feel?

[Jazzizhep]

How do you know his uncle didn’t tell him the story?

I mean somebody could have told Biden his uncle was dinner for cannibals. I don’t know how somebody could tell him he drove an 18 wheeler, or was arrested with Mandela, grew up in a synagogue and a black church, “politically” raised in a Puerto Rican neighborhood while being raised in a polish community, and graduated top of his law school class. Many of these were years before his cognitive decline. But hey, Trump has Alzheimer’s.

[David Nieporent]

How do you know his uncle didn’t tell him the story?

Because his uncle died more than a decade before the unabomber was identified.

[David Nieporent]

The EU is going to invest $600bil over the next three years.

The problem is, this attempt at sanewashing is a lie too. That is not part of the agreement.

As was pointed out at the time, it couldn't be, because the EU doesn't have $600 billion lying around to "invest." Nor does the EU have any ability to tell private companies — which may — how or where to invest.

[loki13]

I made the analogy some weeks ago, and it continues to be true. It's not just that Trump lies repeatedly.

It's also the whole White House (including, and especially, Karoline Leavitt).

Here's the thing- in prior administrations, you always knew that they would spin. They would obfuscate. They would avoid. They would misdirect. But ... and this is a real distinction ... they did their absolute best to never, ever, ever LIE. Lying was the one thing you could not do. Ever. I know that a lot of people here will immediately try to rush and google stuff, but this was a serious barrier. Spin all you want, but never lie. And this was true for regardless of which party held the executive branch.

Now? Every time I see anything from this administration, I think of Baghdad Bob. Remember him? Gulf War? Or use a more current example (I'd go with North Korea, but I'm sure that will set off some keyboard commandoes ... THE GREAT LEADER WINS ALL THE GOLF TORUNAMENTS! THE GREAT LEADER HAS RECEIVED $600 MILLION IN TRIBUTE!!!!).

Point is, I just assume that if their lips are moving, they're lying.

[David Nieporent]

Hegseth just fired the head of DIA because DIA had recently issued an assessment that contradicted the official story about the effects of the bombing of Iran.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse would no longer serve as head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, according to the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly."
Lose lips sink ships.

[SRG2]

Hegseth didn't get fired. But then, Hegseth doesn't report data the president doesn't want to hear.

[David Nieporent]

Lose lips sink ships.

Um, Kruse wasn't the lo[o]se lip. He was just the guy who oversaw the report. Hegseth, on the other hand, was texting operational details to the media.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I read James Garner's autobiography. Wrote it with someone a few years before he died. I checked it out since it was mentioned in a comment about a movie that played on television recently.

It's pretty good. Has a couple of chapters on golf and racing, two of his passions. He includes comments and ratings for all of the stuff he was in. He tosses in some negative ratings.

He was a strong Democrat. He notes early on that his cousin once told him that his mom died from a botched abortion. She was in her 20s, and it took place in the 1930s.

Julia Sweeney, in an otherwise light-hearted book on parenthood, talked about how her mother-in-law got an illegal abortion in the 1960s. Sweeney did some good long-form monologues, including her first, "God Said, Ha!" A later one was basically "God? Ha!"

[Jazzizhep]

Was once told? Was it true or not? I’m not busting your balls as that may be how he worded it.

I was once told the moon was made of cheese. I think maybe it was Wallace and Gromit

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I don't know of any third party who researched what happened to a young Oklahoma woman in the 1930s.

She died. He was very young and didn't remember it. He said that later, his cousin told him about the abortion. Unlike the cheese thing, that is quite a reasonable thing to think happened.

[Jazzizhep]

No, I don’t expect someone to have investigated her. I expect he could have gotten confirmation from other family members. “My cousin once told me…” isn’t something I would write in stone.

And the moon made of cheese quip was a joke—lighten up.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Okay. You said this:

Was once told? Was it true or not?

I answered. As to confirmation of other family members, he doesn't say. He included it in the book. I would think he supposes it is true if he shared it with the general public. "Such and such a person told me" is nothing overly unusual in autobiographies.

The cheese thing was silly because you generally implied a single comment was unreliable & that was obviously a joke. OTOH, the bit here was a reasonable statement. That's all I said.

[Jazzizhep]

It’s him who seems to doubt it. Why wouldn’t he just say “my mother died from an underground abortion..” Not “I was once told.”

[JoeFromtheBronx]

He didn't say.

A reasonable hypothesis is that he is not certain. So, he passed along what evidence is available to him, including a personal remembrance from a trustworthy source.

Others provide grounds to trust James Garner's overall bona fides as a reliable person generally.

It's a standard practice in historical accounts.

It's a more accurate thing to do than to conclusively say something happened because one person, even a trustworthy one, told you something happened.

Unlike "the moon is made of cheese," it is sensible to conclude it happened given the material available.

We don't know for sure, but that is standard in historical accounts with limited evidence available.

[Magister]

It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would be widely discussed among family members, and maybe he had reason otherwise to believe that the cousin was reliable. But what would it matter if he was lied to or lied about being told? Botched abortions killing women did happen in the 1930s.

I suspect that proximity to "He was a strong Democrat" brought out a knee jerk response from Jazzizhep (cf. Kamala Harris working at McDonald's in 1983).

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A district opinion on a Ten Commandments display law ends thusly:

"For those who disagree with the Court’s decision and who would do so with threats, vulgarities and violence, Grace and Peace unto you. May humankind of all faiths, beliefs and non-beliefs be
reconciled one to another.

SIGNED this 20th day of August, 2025.

Amen."

https://www.au.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/78_Order_granting_Pl_August_20_2025.pdf

The opinion has such comments as:

"Though most of the eight billion Homo sapiens have no knowledge they are traveling 66,000 miles per hour around the sun, they have evolved over several million years to be the only species which knows it will die."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A lot of quotables, but would not mind if it was shorter and much of the stuff was left out.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Federal judge write normal opinion challenge: impossible.

[ducksalad]

the only species which knows it will die.

Quotable maybe but not true.

On the one hand, anyone who's had an elderly cat knows there's a time when the cat clearly knows it's dying.

And on the other hand, religious teachings about an afterlife are essentially a form of denial about death.

[Krayt]

An animal in pain will hunker down and not move anymore, even to eat. I don't know if that's knowing its dying.

Do your duty and take it in to be put to sleep.

[ducksalad]

Thinking more of the way an old but mobile cat calmly walks out the house to go die in the woods.

[Bob from Ohio]

"old but mobile cat calmly walks out the house to go die in the woods."

I had a cat who did that. He was frail but still eating well and in no obvious discomfort, so it came as a surprise.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Playing Possum: How Animals Understand Death by Susana Monsó was an interesting book.

[shawn_dude]

Great Apes appear to have an understanding of death and hold funeral rites of a sort. Mated animals of all kinds, including dogs, will sometimes die shortly after their mate for no apparent reason. We call that a "broken heart." But I think there's a difference between knowing that we are all going to die and recognizing that a loved one has just died.

[bernard11]

Elephants are well aware that elephants die. They recognize elephant bones, and pick them yup and move them for some reason.

Whether that translates to them understanding that they themselves as individuals will die I don't know.

[Bob from Ohio]

"only species which knows it will die."

Did Dr. Doolittle write that? Or The Amazing Kreskin?

Because unless he can read minds of animals or understands animal "language", he of course would have no idea.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Property owners should be able to opt out of property tax. In exchange, the county recorder can shred their deed from the chain of title, allowing anyone else to claim it via quitclaim deed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And then be shot for trespassing.

[LawTalkingGuy]

And then they would be charged with murder. You can't defend property you don't own!

[ducksalad]

Not formally, but in practice we already have the first two parts if you let it go for a few years. And we have the third when the property isn't desirable enough to get competing bids at the sheriff's auction - the minimum allowed bid is often the taxes owed.

[John F. Carr]

A quitclaim deed only grants whatever rights the grantor had. I can give you a quitclaim deed to property I don't own.

There is a much lesser version of your vision: In some states you can't claim property by adverse possession unless you have been paying taxes on it.

[Bob from Ohio]

"shred their deed from the chain of title, allowing anyone else to claim it via quitclaim deed."

Stick to debt collections, you can't even get real estate terminology right

[LawTalkingGuy]

Fair enough. I congratulate you on the first time you’ve been a better lawyer than me. I’m sure it won’t happen again for a long time. (I also don’t do debt collection, obviously).

[Bob from Ohio]

obviously!

[LawTalkingGuy]

I mean yeah? Isn’t it pretty obvious what I do?

Not out here talking about FDCPA ever.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Isn’t it pretty obvious what I do?"

Stalk me?

[LawTalkingGuy]

No. I just make fun of you in the public forum you continually post in.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Wtf prompted this?

[hobie]

"Reserve Square, Downtown Cleveland's largest apartment complex [with over 1000 units], hit with foreclosure lawsuit"

"The owners - K&D Group - said vacancies spiked this year as international students left or decided not to come to the United States."

[Frank Drackman]

did the "Housing Crisis" leave with them?

[Mr. Bumble]

This seems ambitious.
"The Trump administration will begin reviewing all 55 million US visa holders to see if any have committed deportable offenses.

Any immigrants holding US visas found with “indicators of overstays, criminal activity, threats to public safety, engaging in any form of terrorist activity, or providing support to a terrorist organization” will have their permits to live in the US revoked and be deported, the State Department announced Thursday.

State Department representatives told the Associated Press all US visa holders are subject to “continuous vetting” intended to identify deportable offenses."

[ducksalad]

1. "...criminal activity, threats to public safety, engaging in any form of terrorist activity, or providing support to a terrorist organization”
Normally one would think "criminal activity" makes the rest of the sentence superfluous. Unless the intent is go after completely legal activity by labeling it a threat or support for terrorists.

2. A fully-MAGA-compliant visa holder with an unusual name has little to fear from the check. But if you have a name like Jose Garcia or Ali Hussein you're screwed because there could easily be a dozen guys with the exact same name and date of birth.

[Michael P]

I hope they're using some tool for it that is more reliable than LLMs.

It may seem ambitious, but some (at this point, maybe most or even all?) holders of US security clearances are subject to "continuous vetting" for what should be a pretty similar set of offenses plus a bunch of other risk factors that are relevant for security clearances but not immigration. So this seems more like an increase in scale, but probably a reduction in per-person scope, compared to something the federal government already does.

[David Nieporent]

And just to forestall the inevitable stupid (already seen on social media): no, that does not mean that there are 55 million people present in the U.S. on visas. People who have not yet come here (or who have already left) can still have valid visas.

[Mr. Bumble]

Does anyone really know who is in the country (legally or illegally)?
See the OP about the man who after 70 years was determined not to be a citizen.

[ducksalad]

.

[Bob from Ohio]

FO time apparently.

https://nypost.com/2025/08/22/us-news/patels-fbi-raids-john-boltons-home-in-high-profile-national-security-probe/

[jb]

What was the FA part? Publicly criticizing Trump?

[LexAquilia]

Illegally storing classified materials part. Probably also some FARA violations.

[Brett Bellmore]

That IS a convenient offense, since you can almost count on anybody as high up the food chain as Bolton having violated it. Half of DC would be locked up if they enforced that law seriously.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It will be incredibly funny when they fail to obtain a conviction of any sort.

[Bob from Ohio]

"they fail to obtain a conviction of any sort"

Just like the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago I guess.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Indeed. But this will be funnier because it will be due to incompetent lawyering by the prosecutors/investigators and not the luck of having a stupid hack as a judge preside over the case.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, that and Trump successfully getting re-elected and impartially terminating all the federal prosecutions against himself.

[Frank Drackman]

That Moustache has got to be a Crime against something.

[Ska]

And forget about trying to eat soup.

[Mr. Bumble]

His wife likes it.

[Frank Drackman]

Hey now!
I sense a "French Tickler" joke inbound.

[shawn_dude]

If it were nearly anyone else, I'd feel bad for them being dragged through court and having to pay to defend themselves against Trumped up charges. (no typo.) But Bolton did associate with Trump, pissed him off a few times, and then turned critic so, yeah this is a #FAFO. Get on Trump's revenge list and Trump is going to send the DOJ after you for "reasons." All strong leaders do this, right? Putin? Orban? Kim? Erdoğan? Modi? Paragons of democracy all of them!

[Sarcastr0]

Doesn’t take much to satisfy Bob.

Any authoritarian flex will do, if it comes from the right political party.

[Bob from Ohio]

FBI executing a federal magistrate issued search warrant is now an "authoritarian flex"? You should tell former AG Garland.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

A portion of the proposed CA amendment:

It is the policy of the State of California to support the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide. The people of the State of California call on the Congress of the United States to pass federal legislation and propose an amendment of the United States Constitution to require the use of fair, independent, and nonpartisan redistricting commissions nationwide.

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/california-democrats-pass-redistricting-bill-to-counter-trumps-texas-gerrymander/

Note that CA is following the process in place -- submitting an amendment to the people. New York requires a longer process to amend its state constitution.

https://www.albanylaw.edu/government-law-center/amending-nys-constitution

Partisan gerrymandering is a problem that ultimately needs to be addressed on the national level to avoid the "race to the bottom" problem. It can be addressed by legislation.

I do support Rick Hasen's "right to vote" amendment, which he discusses in a book. He offers various possible texts.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Politics has been so nationalized that the best solution is proportional representation.

[Brett Bellmore]

It has been the best solution for a long while.

While it's possible to avoid gerrymandering by using objective algorithmic redistricting by computer, even the best maps under single member districts are going to leave a considerable fraction of the population 'represented' by somebody they voted against. In order for everyone who votes to actually be meaningfully represented, you need proportional representation.

I think the best approach treats votes as proxies, and allows everyone who runs for a legislative position to have a vote, which is simply proportional to the number of people who voted for them. You could have some cut off for floor privileges, I suppose, to keep the legislative chamber from getting too crowded. It would be pretty easy to manage with electronic voting.

I favor multi-member districts rather than at large, personally. You want to minimize the cost of achieving minimal effective exposure.

[bernard11]

I think the best approach treats votes as proxies, and allows everyone who runs for a legislative position to have a vote, which is simply proportional to the number of people who voted for them.

I once liked this idea, but I've changed my mind. The problem I see is that legislators who run unopposed, or nearly so, end up with more votes than those from contested districts. So the legislature ends up dominated by members from the most one-sided, partisan districts. That's not a good recipe for rational debate, compromise and bipartisan legislation.

[Jazzizhep]

Wouldn’t a proportional vote severely lessen the number of unopposed candidates? The reason a candidate isn’t opposed is because there is no way in hell some other party would win.

[Brett Bellmore]

Exactly! Under my proposal there are no wasted votes, and so no reason not to contest every seat.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Uphill battle given how tied we are to individual political races, especially if it's going to be applied as a national rule.

It might be an option that is provided as proof of legitimacy, which will encourage its usage.

[LexAquilia]

WOAH! THIS IS HUGE!

Scientists Officially Declare End of ‘Climate Emergency’ During Prague Climate Conference
Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel) “calls upon the entire scientific community to cease and desist from its persecution of scientists and researchers who disagree with the current official narrative.”

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/11/scientists-officially-declare-end-of-climate-emergency-during-prague-climate-conference/

[jb]

Wow, look. Lex actually provided a cite to one of his kooky claims!

I guess I've got one too. It's a bit older, but still equally interesting, I think:

But for the members of the Flat Earth Society, today was just "another day of lies". So said Monterrey, Mexico's Flat Earth Society Meetup group organizer Jose Ortiz

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/webarticles/Flat%20Earth%20Society%20calls%20SpaceShipOne%20Flight%20Fraud%20(Bentinel).pdf

[loki13]

Better watch out.

According to the Flat Earth Society, they have members all of the globe.

[shawn_dude]

Buh-dum!

[not guilty]

James Dobson died at age 89. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/james-dobson-focus-on-the-family-founder-and-key-leader-on-the-christian-right-dies-at-89/ar-AA1KXuyB?ocid=BingNewsSerp

One less authoritarian hatemonger on the planet. He will not be missed.

[ThePublius]

De mortuis nil nisi bonum.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

For those who want to speak ill of the dead.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/08/james-dobson-burn-in-hell

I take "burn in hell" as either overly optimistic or a symbolic statement. Anyway, one thing noted was his opposition to dancing.

I think it was a Kevin Bacon thing.

[Frank Drackman]

Dead Man, Don't Dance, Turn me on Dead Man, Don't wear Plaid.

[shawn_dude]

History books are filled with people documenting bad things about dead people. This whole "don't speak ill of the dead" thing rings a bit like pro-gun people saying we shouldn't politicize the most recent mass shooting in a school. In polite society, we shouldn't bring up politics or religion over the dinner table. Yet, this is Reason.com, which probably ranks as one of the least polite, most vulgar websites attached to multiple highly educated legal experts.

Dobson was a cruel person who caused a lot of harm to very many Americans and his passing is a small but meaningful ray of hope for those who survive him--which many Americans did not.

[Frank Drackman]

Missing where he left a young woman to Asphyxiate (NOT Drowned, there's a difference) and still had the Cojones to stay in Politics for 40 more years (and if it wasn't for the "Celestial" recall would still be there)

[not guilty]

Ted Kennedy's conduct at Chappaquiddick was reprehensible and indefensible. He should have been charged with some degree of homicide. But his remaining in the Senate for another forty years is because he won another seven elections after Ms. Kopechne's death.

If Ted Kennedy and James Dobson were both drowning, and if I had only one life preserver to throw, it would not have been a difficult choice.

[ThePublius]

Since this is an open thread, something completely different:

I had cataract surgery. Left eye was done a month ago, right eye Tuesday.

It's really quite amazing to me how this is done. The procedures is a Phacoemulsification with Intra-Ocular Lens implantation (IOL). The doc, working through a microscope, makes a 1 to 2mm incision near the edge of your iris and inserts an ultrasonic probe that he uses to dissolve your natural lens. Then the debris is vacuumed out. Then he inserts a tool that holds the folded replacement lens and inserts it. A suture may or may not be needed to hold it in place, or to close the incision. The entire procedure for the patient is a couple of hours, but the surgery is only 10 minutes or so. My surgeon said he does 20 of these on a surgery day. I got one suture in the left to close the incision. They will probably remove the suture.

On my left, the first one, my vision was great, immediately. It even got better as time went by. The right, Tuesday, I was disappointed, as it was a bit fuzzy. But now, three days hence, it's just as good as the left. The only glasses I might ever need are for reading fine print. I'm using cheap cheaters for now.

Mind you, I'm extremely farsighted, and have been wearing glasses since I was probably four years old. I have never seen this well in my life. It's really quite remarkable. I threw away my contacts, donated my glasses, and will get prescription readers in a month or two, after my vision stabilizes.

Wow. That's all I have to say.

I'm on Medicare with Tufts for the supplements. Total cost to me will be around $540, plus some costs for eye drops, and that includes the laser surgery for my narrow angles, a Laser Peripheral Iridotomy on both eyes before the cataract surgery.

I'm super happy.

My only question is why didn't they do this for me 20, 30 years ago? 🙂

[Brett Bellmore]

I had a similar experience: Madly nearsighted from an early age, I went through chemo in 2010, which caused me to develop cataracts. (The fastest developing case my optometrist had ever seen!)

I could wish the cataracts were the only effect on my eyes, I also developed fractured vitreous humor, (You don't notice it when your eyes are still, but when I move my eyes the pieces tumbling around make it kind of like looking through a glass full of ice cubes.) and retinal wrinkles. Happily that last gradually went away.

It took me a little while to get used to having the wind in my eyes, but for the first ten years I didn't even need reading glasses! I finally lost effective accommodation a few years back, started using OTC readers, and earlier this year gave up and got prescription progressive lenses. But I can still get by without glasses if I don't need to read anything.

"My only question is why didn't they do this for me 20, 30 years ago?"

Same reason they did one eye at a time, and won't treat my fractured vitreous humor. (There is a treatment for it, but it's only available if it gets REALLY bad.) They really, seriously hate to mess around with the inside of somebody's eyes unless the alternative is blindness, because any time you do it you risk accidentally blinding the person.

[tylertusta]

I agree. My dad had cataract surgery, and one of his eyes had complications. That's why they waited until his eyes were already very bad before they operated.

[Brett Bellmore]

But if you wait too long the chances of complications start rising.

Funny but true story: Mom was developing cataracts while I was in college, and they were getting really bad. (You could see them looking at her!) But she was in denial about needing the surgery.

I'd grown a beard while away, and home for Christmas, I shaved it off one side of my face. 3" bushy beard left behind on the other. At dinner I asked if she noticed anything different about me. She didn't.

I got close to her and pointed out the beard. The next day she called her doctor to schedule the surgery.

[ThePublius]

That's funny.

When my 90 year old mother in law had cataract surgery she got home and looked in the mirror and said "that surgery gave me wrinkles!"

[Ska]

Your conclusion is why I've never given Lasik any serious consideration. I've been wearing contacts for 35 years. It takes about twenty seconds to put both in. It takes about ten seconds to take both out. The procedure would need to be 100% safe and practically free to even put a value on that tiny bit of time saving and QoL improvement.

[hobie]

Amen, brother. I won't let anyone touch my eyes...I don't care what they say.

[Frank Drackman]

Good, when you get Cataracts or MD you'll be blind and Evil-lution will work it's magic.

[ThePublius]

There's a new procedure in the research stages right now called EMR, electro magnetic reshaping. Someone figure out that a small electrical charge can alter the pH of the cornea's cells which weakens the bonds. A platinum contact lens like device is placed on the eye that has the new desire shape. The charge is applied, and when the charge is removed, the cells retain the new shape. It's amazing. I hope they get this through the FDA and to market soon.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's pretty cool! Won't replace cataract surgery, of course, but it could replace a lot of glasses.

[ThePublius]

Yes, indeed. Very cool. Would obsolete LASIK.

[hobie]

Just sprinkle a little ivermectin on it, Brett. That shit does off-label wonders on everything

[bernard11]

I'm with you.

I had it a few years ago and it worked like a charm. The only problem I had was that for a day or two my white kitchen cabinets turned blue.

The explanation the doc gave me was that cataracts are sort of a muddy yellow-brown, so they give that cast to things you look at. Fortunately, with familiar items like the cabinets the brain, despite getting muddy yellow-brown signals, knows they're white, and corrects the color.

After the surgery it takes the brain a little while to realize the cataracts are gone, and it just needs to accept the eyes' report, with no adjustment. So it keeps correcting and the correction turns the cabinets blue.

[Frank Drackman]

Umm, because you didn't have Cataracts then?
And they've only been doing that procedure since I was in Med School, i.e. last Millenium,
and it is amazing, Eye Surgeon makes less per procedure than a good Tatoo Artist

[bernard11]

And they've only been doing that procedure since I was in Med School,

I think cataract surgery is older than that. Monet had it done in 1923.

[Frank Drackman]

I was using "only" as an intensifier.
Or whatever when you're being sarcastic.

[ThePublius]

"Although the origin of cataract surgery is unknown, the earliest identified mention of cataract surgery comes from Chrysippus in the 3rd century B.C.E."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7344708/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataract_surgery#History

[hobie]

Higher learning got you the technology; social resource pooling (a little bit of my money is in your corneas, bro) got you the reduced cost. You're welcome. And I am genuinely glad to hear your results

[ThePublius]

Thank you, hobie. And my vision is even better today.

[Jmaie]

"The entire procedure for the patient is a couple of hours, but the surgery is only 10 minutes or so. My surgeon said he does 20 of these on a surgery day."

Some time ago I heard a story on NPR about cataract surgery in rural India. The docs couldn't go to every out of the way village so they set up a traveling circus where patients went to centralized areas. They set up an assembly line in tents where patients would be sedated, nurses would make an incision and place a suture to hold the flap open, the doc would come along behind and remove the cloudy lens (using a tube and liquid N2) and then a nurse would close up. Each group would treat 12 patients an hour...

[ThePublius]

True story, I think I read it in Scientific American decades ago. An ophthalmologist in NYC had a farm in Upstate NY as a weekend retreat. There was an owl that would sit on a fence post and hunt mice in the field. The doc noticed the owl had become sickly and skinny. So, he captured it and examined it, and learned it had cataracts, which greatly inhibited its hunting effectiveness. So, he performed cataract surgery on it, and after a brief period of convalescence released it. It resumed hunting with great success and became well and healthy again. Amazing.

[John F. Carr]

The Alaska Bar Association recommends that former federal judge Joshua Kindred be disbarred. The state Supreme Court will decide. Under state rules a disbarred attorney is eligible to apply for reinstatement after five years.

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/crime-courts/2025/08/21/alaska-bar-votes-to-revoke-law-license-of-disgraced-former-federal-judge/
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/bid-to-disbar-disgraced-alaska-judge-heads-to-top-state-court

I don't like giving state bar associations the right to discipline federal employees for their activities within the federal government. That jurisdictional issue aside, he stands accused of acts that warrant disbarment. He lied to investigators in an attempt to defeat accusations of sexual misconduct.

[David Nieporent]

I don't like giving state bar associations the right to discipline federal employees for their activities within the federal government.

I don't see the issue. If you're an Alaska lawyer and you engage in garden variety private fraud in Florida, you may get disciplined/disbarred by the Alaska bar. That doesn't mean the Alaska bar is usurping the right of the state of Florida to enforce (or not enforce) its criminal laws; it's just deciding that if you do those things you can't be an Alaska-licensed lawyer.

[SRG2]

Trump trying to coerce Colorado to release a criminal.

Trump threatens Colorado with ‘harsh measures’ unless far-right election conspiracy theorist released from prison

Donald Trump is demanding the release of a prominent far-right conspiracy theorist and former state elections official who is serving a nine-year jail sentence after she was found guilty of crimes connected to a nationwide scheme to overturn election results in states Trump lost in 2020.

[loki13]

Let's see. How long until he threatens tariffs on Colorado?

I swear, calling this the actions of a banana republic is a slander on bananas.

[John F. Carr]

U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro will refuse to accept felony charges for carrying a rifle or shotgun without a permit. She says DC law requiring a permit conflicts with recent Supreme Court precedent. She can not prevent district prosecutors from charging misdemeanor failure to register a gun.

https://apnews.com/article/jeanine-pirro-rifles-shotguns-trump-6b642047d933171e9af544e096c1ed15

Also, paywalled source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/19/pirro-dc-rifle-shotgun-charges/

[Brett Bellmore]

" She can not prevent district prosecutors from charging misdemeanor failure to register a gun."

But she could potentially go after them for an "under the color of law" offense, since they're unconstitutionally interfering with the exercise of a civil right.

[not guilty]

"But she could potentially go after them for an 'under the color of law' offense, since they're unconstitutionally interfering with the exercise of a civil right."

Ms. Pirro could go after whom, Brett? District prosecutors in her own office?

Criminal prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 242 for violation of civil rights under color of law is subject to a due process limitation of fair warning to the accused that, at the time of the alleged offending conduct, existing law had "clearly established" that the statute criminalized the conduct in question. United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997) (remanding for new trial the prosecution of a state court judge who had sexually assaulted several women in his judicial chambers). SCOTUS there opined:

In sum, as with civil liability under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983 or Bivens, all that can usefully be said about criminal liability under § 242 is that it may be imposed for deprivation of a constitutional right if, but only if, "in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness under the Constitution is apparent," Anderson [v. v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635,] 640 [(1987).] Where it is, the constitutional requirement of fair warning is satisfied.

520 U.S. at 271-272.

Brett, what pre-existing law, if any, do you claim would give a federal prosecutor fair warning that charging a misdemeanor failure to register a gun in the District of Columbia is "clearly established" to be criminal conduct prohibited by § 242?

[not guilty]

Still waiting, Brett.

[Brett Bellmore]

The 2nd amendment. It's been around long enough to provide due notice, andthe Supreme court rulings Ms Pirro is relying on were no secret.

[not guilty]

Brett, you plainly have no grasp of the concept of law being "clearly established" as that phrase is used in Lanier and in Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 [(1987) (from which Justice Souter in Lanier borrowed the applicable language).

None of the authorities that Ms. Pirro claims to have relied upon involved criminal prosecution or a civil damages claim against a prosecutor, whether federal or state. What judicial decision or other authority, Brett, do you claim would give a federal prosecutor fair warning that charging a misdemeanor failure to register a gun in the District of Columbia is an infringement by that prosecutor of the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

If you've got bupkis, man up and admit it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,"

What he's owed is due notice of is that what he's depriving people of are rights, privileges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United states.

If Supreme court precedent really is that requiring a permit to carry a gun is unconstitutional, then he's under that notice. He could, of course, argue the point if prosecuted.

[Magister]

If it were that easy to show that something is clearly established, pretty much nobody would ever get qualified immunity. It seems to me the Supreme Court has not struck down DC's licensing requirements.

[John F. Carr]

The Brazilian judge sanctioned by Trump for being anti-Bolsonaro warned Brazilian financial institutions not to cooperate with the sanctions.

In his interview, Moraes said decisions by foreign courts and governments can only take effect in Brazil after validation through a domestic process. He said banks therefore cannot seize assets, freeze funds or block the property of Brazilian citizens without following those legal steps.

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/judge-us-crosshairs-warns-brazil-banks-not-apply-sanctions-locally-2025-08-20/
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazil-judge-targeted-by-us-sanctions-confident-trump-reversal-2025-08-20/

[Mhxekszj]

the criminal stupid mestizo kilmar garcia is now free because of a nigger judge appointed by the head nigga in charge from 2008-2016.

why do leftists want this ugly mayan savage in this country in the first place?

[loki13]

New name, same block.

[Frank Drackman]

Obviously, to "Kill more Garcias"

[Moderation4ever]

Because he is one man with little power. There are a lot of people that are scarier and they are in the Trump administration.

[Kazinski]

The Markets sure liked what Powell said in Jackson Hole. All the indexes are up by 1.5%-2%. Bonds are up too.

And least someone complains its just the big cap stocks moving the Russell 2000 is up a whopping 3.86%, the Russell 2000 is basically the entire market minus the top 1000 largest cap stocks.

Powell said the the current labor market as a "curious kind of balance" due to a slowing in both the supply and demand for jobs.

I think slowing of the labor supply is the 1.5 million illegals going home, which of course is slightly inflationary because it will keep wages from falling because the job market is slowing.

One other market tidbit, Intel is up 6% on the news that the US will take a 10% stake in Intel, this is the largest Equity stake by the government since the Government owned 61% of GM during 2008-12 Tarp program.

Doesn't quite seem right, Intel is up 28% dice the beginning of the month and Trump started talking about taking a 10% stake, shouldn't we be getting 38%, if we are adding that much value?

[hobie]

My request to Google AI:

"Did the Nazis confiscate private industry?"

"The Nazis did not nationalize all private industry in Germany but instead implemented a system of state control that allowed for the confiscation of private assets, particularly from Jewish owners. This selective but widespread theft, combined with heavy regulation, allowed the Nazi regime to direct the economy toward its own goals.

For "Aryan" business owners, the Nazis did not nationalize their companies outright but instead placed them under heavy state control, creating a pseudo-capitalist system that served the regime."

[Kazinski]

In this case the government is making an 8.7% investment in Intel, money authorized under the Biden CHIPS act but Trump doesn't like government to corporate giveaways.

I don't approve of either the CHIPS act or the stake.

But I approve of taking the stake more than just giving the money away.

[hobie]

Biden! Drink!

[Kazinski]

Carney has announced he is unilaterally removing Canada's retaliatory tariffs.

A little weird that in a supposed democracy that a leader can just change tariffs just like that without legislation.

The main reason is that it was killing small businesses, we aren't seeing that impact here, at least it isn't showing up in the 2nd qtr GDP numbers.

The Canadian dollar jumped .002 on the news.

[jb]

Looks like Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been released by the federal government.

So much for Commenter_XY's (and other's) prediction that the inevitable result was that he'd stay in prison until he was (re-)deported.

[hobie]

Goddamn due process is a bitch.

[Frank Drackman]

Shaking up with Congressman Van Horrible?? Prison would be more humane.

[Kazinski]

If I were Garcia I would take the opportunity to head to Guatemala where he has family, while he is a free man.

!maybe he can turn his life around, but his prospects here are dim.

[Kazinski]

Boy did I call it or what?

Garcia's attorney has been notified that he may be deported to Uganda after 72 hours, this is his haneas due process notification. He is also ordered to present himself at a Maryland ICE office Monday.

Hopefully if he hops on it he can book himself a flight to Guatemala over the weekend, and if he needs it maybe they can even arrage temporary travel papers for him, because I know he doesn't have a US passport.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/kilmar-abrego-garcia-be-deported-uganda-72-hours-report

[tylertusta]

If he flees, hides, or doesn't report on Monday he'll in even bigger trouble than he is now.

[jb]

Seems like the government no longer thinks he is a really dangerous human trafficker, though?

In any case, yes if I were him I'd probably take the DHS up on their travel stipend and go somewhere other than South Sudan. I think it's pretty gross that the administration is deporting people to random places that they have no connection to, but if I were him I also wouldn't want to be a guinea pig for any more of Trump's cruelty.

[tylertusta]

Seems like the government no longer thinks he is a really dangerous human trafficker, though?

The government lost its bid to keep Garcia in jail for his Tennessee trial. He had to be released, and there was nothing the government could do about that.

In any case, yes if I were him I'd probably take the DHS up on their travel stipend and go somewhere other than South Sudan

The government plans on sending him to Uganda, actually.

I think it's pretty gross that the administration is deporting people to random places that they have no connection to, but if I were him I also wouldn't want to be a guinea pig for any more of Trump's cruelty.

I understand your opinion, but when there is no option to deport them to their home country, then the law says that they can go to any country willing to take them and so long as that country's government agrees to torture the people that we deport there.

If you don't like it, lobby Congress to change the law.

[David Nieporent]

and so long as that country's government agrees to torture the people that we deport there.

I believe that's called a Freudian slip.

[tylertusta]

Government has ordered him to report to ICE offices in Baltimore for deportation proceedings on Monday.

This weekend may be his last hurrah as a free man in the United States.

[ThePublius]

Gavin Newsom referring to Gov. Greg Abbott and POTUS Donald Trump:
"I’m going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth."

Is this actionable? Should the USSS look into this, interview this guy, at least?

[hobie]

"Trump on protester: 'I’d like to punch him in the face'"
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-punch-protester-219655

[Frank Drackman]

New-Scum will get his, which DemoKKKrat in the 28' Primary will go all Barry Hussein and land this Zinger

"Governor New-Scum? 1989 called, Pat Riley wants his hairstyle back"

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why are you asking us?

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I always threaten to punch a man in the “mangina” and that way it’s not an actual threat…unless they have one! 😉

[hobie]

Trump 1990: "Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are little short guys that wear yarmulkes every day."

Trump 2025: ""Think of that: No death tax. No estate tax. No going to the banks and borrowing from, in some cases, a fine banker - and in some cases, Shylocks and bad people”"

Trump 2024: ""any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion""

Trump 2024: ""I'm not going to call this a prediction, but, in my opinion, the Jewish people would have a lot to do with a loss if I’m at 40%.""

Trump 2025 [on Chuck Schumer]: ""As far as I'm concerned, he's become a Palestinian. He used to be Jewish. He's not Jewish any more. He's a Palestinian.""

The tired, old conservative antisemitism is always just bubbling away right under surface. You know, I once saw a similar black and white reel about denying Jews their own agency as to their very identity. But I had trouble following it because it was narrated in GERMAN!

[Frank Drackman]

You're right I don't get Blacks/Jews voting for the Party that's actively killing them, but it's turning around, 26% of Hebrews voted for "45/47/48?" last year, 21% of Black Males, he actually won Hispanic Men 50/49 (those "White Hispanics" no doubt) Good thing we have lots of White Women (53/43 Trump) and Non-College-Ed-Jew-ma-Cated Men (AKA "Hayseeds") 66/30 and Women 60/40.
No wonder he loves the "Poorly Ed-Jew-ma-Cated"

Frank

[hobie]

Have democrats been killing jews and blacks, Frankie? Or are you referring to infanticide kinda like the flood and the passover, and Amalek, and the Canaanites and..well, we're just doing God's work wouldn't you agree? [you can't win with me, Frankie...you should know this by now]

[Frank Drackman]

It is in your nature to destroy yourselves. I'm a T-800, my only competition is that know it all T-1000.

Frank "I need your clothes, your boots, and your motorcycle, oh it's Hobie-Stank?? forget the clothes and boots"

[Mr. Bumble]

What's better, a TN jail or a trip to Uganda? Inquiring minds want to know.

[David Nieporent]

I have not familiarized myself with up-to-date country conditions for Uganda, but that depends if Trump has a secret agreement with the Ugandan government to imprison and torture him. If not, then freedom in Uganda — with the opportunity to go anywhere else once he gets there — is probably better.

[SRG2]

A summary:

DOJ: If you say there was no client list and Trump wasn't involved, we'll move you to a cushier prison and eventually pardon you.
Ghislaine Maxwell: there was no client list and Trump wasn't involved

[Mr. Bumble]

No one cares but you be you.

[SRG2]

Just keep believing that no-one cares. It's of a piece with the rest of your beliefs.

[Estragon]

lol. Joe Rogan cares!

I get that this is the current talking point here but a few observations:

1) you and Bob are not helping your case by rushing here in a flopsweat every time the word Epstein appears proclaiming “nobody cares.”

2) I assure you people do in fact care. See below.

3) it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, over. Mike Johnson surrendered his gavel and fled town rather than take votes on Epstein materials. But that was only a 2-3 week kludge. More votes incoming when they return. Obviously the hope was it would be forgotten by now, hence your talking points. Mark Wayne Mullin admitted as much on the Senate floor.

4) why is it not over? Well, because it is scandalous! Setting aside the political valence, and EVEN DISCOUNTING Trump’s involvement, this is a huge story! International sex trafficking ring involving the rich and famous and royalty from across the globe! Titans of industry and finance implicated! Tantalizing clues! Cryptic messages! So “nobody cares” rings pretty hollow. I doubt you even hold that view.

5) consider, I beg you, for a moment another possibility. Decent Americans do in fact care about what happened with Epstein because it is horrendous and horrible. It’s actually possible for people to have some moral baseline independent of the bottomless partisan nihilism exhibited around here. I once again invite you to view this interview with the family of Ms Giuffre. It is searing. There are hundreds more victims.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUEqfG0IkY

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Doing so much to help someone convicted of child sex trafficking and other crimes is not suspicious at all.

To remind:

From at least 1994, up to and including in or about 2004, GHISLAINE MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/ghislaine-maxwell-sentenced-20-years-prison-conspiring-jeffrey-epstein-sexually-abuse [Date: 2022]

She had a long history of enticing people to do criminal acts and was not concerned about being truthful to do so.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Regarding Kilmar Abrego Garcia, he has family (including a wife, special needs children, and a brother*) in this country, so I can understand why he wouldn't want to leave to go to some other country, including one where he has family but hasn't lived there with them for years. Garcia has been in this country for around 14 years. He has significant connections to it. It is his home.

Playing a game of "would you rather," I can see as a distant second, he rather go someplace other than a country where he has no connections at all.

The United States government has repeatedly violated his rights, including wrongly sending him to a foreign prison where he alleges (not much reason to doubt it) he was seriously abused.

If he wants to stay here with his family, including helping to take care of his special needs children, that is the just result. Forcing him to leave, including by threatening to send him to Africa, is horrible. But we are governed by a horrible administration.

===

* "Abrego Garcia must remain in the custody of his brother in Maryland, according to his release order."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kilmar-abrego-garcia-released-friday-criminal-custody/story?id=124874189

The brother, wife, and children are American citizens.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

One article says he was offered Costa Rica.

Yes, Costa Rica > Uganda.

A third choice, staying here, would be much better.

https://apnews.com/article/abrego-garcia-deportation-uganda-el-savador-1a94ad82d88ddda56d669ce86bc77ff4

[David Nieporent]

Yes, Costa Rica > Uganda.

For numerous reasons, including the fact that he speaks the language.

[David Nieporent]

I just read up on this. Abrego Garcia's lawyers say in a court filing that he was offered Costa Rica if he agreed to plead guilty to the fake charges against him, and was threatened with Uganda if he didn't. This is beyond vile.

Mussolini, Ceaușescu, Hussein… Trump?

[Life of Brian]

If plea bargaining is now "beyond vile," we have some serious retooling of the legal system ahead of us.

(I think they're overused too, but the selective outrage is a bit much.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If plea bargaining is now "beyond vile," we have some serious retooling of the legal system ahead of us."

It is, and we do.

Wait until he finds out about the time-served plea, where you get to go home today if you confess, but stay in jail indefinitely if you don't. So you end up serving more time if you are acquitted than you do if you are convicted.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The brother, wife, and children are American citizens."

While he is an illegal alien. That he's an illegal alien is not a matter of dispute, and is, by itself, entirely sufficient cause for deporting him, even if he was otherwise a saint.

[LexAquilia]

Hey leftwing foot soldiers and other assorted Lefty dipshits, new language marching orders are out:

https://x.com/adamwren/status/1958859560749277548/photo/1
And it's hilarious how far your mind masters are clawing back their over reach.

[Life of Brian]

Wow, my first thought was that had to be satire, but apparently not at all.

Among the blacklisted terms: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people … involuntary confinement

That cuts pretty deep indeed.

It's just a touch cycnical, though, since apparently the recommendation is just to stop USING that sort of cuckoo language so they decrease the chances that regular folks they're trying to court for Team Blue think they're cuckoo -- not to actually dial back on the belief systems behind the language.

[David Nieporent]

It's "cynical" for political consultants to give advice to political parties on effective messaging? That's what consultants do.

[Life of Brian]

The King's English is replete with phrases that accurately describe the process of scrupulously sanitizing language so as to conceal a cult's true beliefs and thus increase the odds of someone getting roped into the cult before they realize the truth.

"Effective messaging" is not one of them.

[Estragon]

“Cuts pretty bad”

This is so painfully stupid. See if you can guess the sole congressperson, since 2010, to use the words “microaggression” and “cultural appropriation” in a press release:

[Life of Brian]

Why in the world would I play guess-what-I'm-thinking with someone who can't even manage to correctly quote the post they're replying to?

[Estragon]

Oh, please forgive me.

No guess?

[Life of Brian]

Following up on Monday's weeping and gnashing of teeth over a supposed plunge in DC restaurant reservations supposedly due to the presence of the National Guard, I had predicted this week would show a huge positive swing and the whole kerfuffle likely was due to year-over-year artifacting caused by the 1-week offset in Restaurant Week from last year to this year.

Here's the YoY data for the full week, again from the same OpenTable data used in Sarc's sky-is-falling article:

Monday: +29%
Tuesday: +13%
Wednesday: +23%
Thursday: +31%
Friday: +26%

Again, absolute numbers would paint a much clearer picture, but this one seems clear enough.

[ThePublius]

Nice.